Manufacturing and Fuel Cycle in France: AREVA and Nuclear Communicators

A year ago this week, I was in France at an AREVA-sponsored trip for pro-nuclear bloggers. We saw the entire fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, reprocessing, and waste vitrification. I was very glad to be invited to see these things with my own eyes.

The trip was inspiring. I began solid friendships with other pro-nuclear bloggers, and visited a country that embraces clean air, good food, and nuclear power. Here are some of the things I saw and learned on the trip.

Improved Manufacturing: Support Plates as Giant Jewelry

A PWR steam generator has tubes carrying water from the reactor: these tubes pass through support plates which hold them in place. The illustration above is a set of steam generator support plates, manufactured at AREVA's facility at Chalon.

Part of the time I worked in nuclear power, I was in the Steam Generator Owner's Group at EPRI. In those days, support plates were rather crude things built of relatively low-quality steel. The holes for the tubes were either "drilled" or "punched" and the quality control wasn't particularly good. These support plates caused problems for PWR reliability.

Now, steam generators are being replaced in many PWRs, and AREVA is building some of the new ones. Modern support plates are high quality steel, and each tube opening is carefully made, measured and polished. As one person on the trip described it: "These support plates are like huge pieces of jewelry." Yes. Precision jewelry.

We have not built new plants in this country, but the nuclear industry has made amazing progress in building new and better components for existing plants. I am glad I was able to see this.

Fuel Shipment: Porcupines Coming Down the Road

In America, we keep spent fuel in on-site fuel pools, and move it slowly into dry cask storage. In France, there's a huge central fuel pool at La Hague at the recycling facility (at left). The pool is in the facility where the spent fuel is processed into new fuel.

How does the used fuel got to that big facility? On my trip, I learned the simple answer: used fuel moves by road and by rail.

The used-fuel shipment containers are shown at the right. These containers are extremely sturdy, can be hit by locomotives without breaking, etc. The French hold used fuel at the reactor site for less than two years (usually). Therefore, French shipping containers carry fuel which is physically hot. The container looks a bit like a porcupine. Vanes stick out to promote cooling and heat transfer.

In this country, we tend to get tunnel vision. We think that fuel cannot possibly be moved until it has cooled in a local fuel pool for at least five years. When I went to France, I realized that is just a choice we have made. Fuel is moved much sooner in France, and very safely.

Meeting People and Friendship

I have to finish with a view of the group in front of the Melox facility which manufactures MOx fuel. To the left is our guide from Melox: then Steve Aplin (wearing shades) of Canadian Energy Issues: Jack Gamble of Nuclear Fissionary: Rod Adams (also wearing shades) of Atomic Insights: Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World: Jarret Adams of AREVA and the AREVA North America Next Energy blog, and me.

Friendship was the greatest gift of the trip.

Post Script about the Anniversary:

I keep a Levenger five-year journal. Among other things, that means I always know what I was doing on the same day last year. I find the five-year-journal's short format very informative. It helps me understand what I wanted, what I did, and how I succeeded or failed. It's also useful for figuring out when my favorite flowers are likely to bloom.

I used to do more elaborate journaling, but I never wanted to re-read the stuff I wrote. While the extensive writing helped me at some level, it didn't inform me as I moved forward in my life. In contrast, a five-year journal is more like a log book, and I thoroughly recommend having one. If you buy a five year journal, buy a good one, like the Levenger journal. After all, it has to last five years. (I get no money from Levenger from this endorsement!)

All illustrations on this post are courtesy of AREVA.

Update: Thanks for the link, Jarret! A Trip Down Memory Lane at the AREVA blog.

Local Meetings and a Revised Website for Vermont Yankee

Information about the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan meetings and the NRC Vermont Yankee review meeting.

Also, welcome to the revised Vermont Yankee website.

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, Thursday June 9, Springfield Vermont

If you remember, newly-elected Governor Shumlin was shocked to discover that Vermont's energy plan included Vermont Yankee past 2012. As Governor Shumlin requested, the Department of Public Service is putting a new plan together. The Governor hopes to have the new Comprehensive Energy Plan on his desk by this fall. Here's the DPS web page about the plan, including links to various drafts.

Update: At first, I couldn't find the meeting information on the DPS web site.. However, there is a link to the meetings on the DPS web page. I thank Ed Delhagen of DPS for sending it to me. Forums to Focus on State Comprehensive Energy Plan Update.

I first learned about the meetings because I received an email as a member of the Hartford Township Energy Commission. The meetings are open to the public. I encourage people to attend the planning meetings and make public statements in favor of the energy type you choose (nuclear, I hope!)

I will be at the June 9 meeting highlighted below.

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

June Forums to Focus on State Comprehensive Energy Plan Update

***Your input is needed!***

Goal: Comprehensive Energy Plan to be Completed & on Governor’s desk by Oct 15;

Implementation of VT’s Energy Plan is the central piece of this work!

Community energy committee leaders, planners and the general public are all invited to attend one of the following:

• June 1 Montpelier 6-9 p.m. National Life. Co-hosted by the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers Ottauquechee Planning Commission
• June 9 Springfield - Riverside Middle School 6-9 p.m. In cooperation with Windham Regional Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Planning Commission
• June 16 Rutland Leahy Center at Rutland Regional Medical Center 6-9 p.m. Co-hosted by the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Addison County Regional Planning Commission and Bennington County Planning Commission
• June 28 - Colchester - Colchester High School - 6- 9 pm

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

(Email from Bob Walker of SERG. Thank you to Mr. Walker for sending this email.)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annual Review Meeting June 22

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold the annual review meeting about Vermont Yankee at Brattleboro High School on June 22, from 6:30 to 9 p.m. To find out more about the meeting, go to the NRC website. There's a calendar headed Public Meetings: if you click on June 22, you can find out more about the meeting. The agenda is:

• Introduction Discussion of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station performance in 2010(10 minutes)
• Discussion of U.S. plant safe operation in light of Japan event (10 minutes)
• NRC to address public questions (time as needed)
• Closing Remarks (5 minutes)

These meetings are great gathering places for plant opponents. Sometimes their remarks are quite humorous. Last year there was an exchange about "Was the fish alive when you caught it?" Or had the fish died of radiation poisoning first?

Plant supporters are often too intimidated to show up. If you can show up and make a public comment before the NRC, it can balance the situation at least a little. I plan to be there.

A Modern Website for Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee has put some time and thought into its message in the past few months. The Vermont Yankee website has been totally revamped recently.

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/

The new website is much more appealing, and includes links and an email sign-up area. Vermont Yankee is also on Twitter now @Vermont_Yankee. As far as I can tell, they joined Twitter yesterday. Check out the new media!

A New Blog at Vermont Law School

The Announcement

Two days ago, Vermont Law School (VLS) announced they were starting a blog about the Vermont Yankee law suit. The announcement was quickly picked up by the Burlington Free Press, and you can read the Law School blog here. I have also added it to my blog roll.

As a blogger, I would call it a weak blog. That is not a comment on the views expressed but on the shallowness of the blogging. There' s one blog post by Pat Parentau, there's a reprint of a Vermont Public Radio interview with Entergy's lawyer, Cheryl Hanna, and there are links to several posts by Donald Kreis. These posts previously appeared in Vermont Digger: the most recent of these posts is An Inconvenient Truth: Entergy Might Win.

I feel as if someone at VLS said: "You know, we should be blogging about that lawsuit. We've been advising the legislature about it forever, so we should really get out there with a blog." So they threw some old posts together, and presto, a blog!

Radio Mistakes

So far, the VLS blog doesn't have much value-added, but that may improve. Pat Parentau's post is new content, at least. I find Parentau's arguments a bit muddy. However, I am also prejudiced by the fact that he made so many mistakes on a radio show recently.

Parentau was on WCFR on May 5, along with some friends of mine such as John McClaughry. On that show, Parentau claimed that several things had "disillusioned" Vermonters and caused Vermont to pass Act 160. (Act 160 took power from the Public Service Board and gave it to the legislature.)

According to Parentau, three things that caused the legislature to pass Act 160 were:

• the cooling tower collapse (2007),
• the tritium leak (2010)
• the "lies" about the underground pipes (2009).

However, Act 160 was passed in 2006, before any of these things happened!

I have a hard time taking a person seriously when he has the event sequence completely backwards. I couldn't believe my ears, and had to check with other people who were listening to the radio program. Did Parentau really say those things? The other people said that they heard what I had heard. However, I hope that WCFR posts a tape or transcript of the show so I can check further.

The VLS Blog Could Be Good

VLS started a blog. It isn't very good. So why do I care?

The problem is that the lawsuit situation in Vermont is getting out of hand. Lawsuits are breeding like rabbits--the kind of rabbits that live where there aren't enough natural predators. I want to blog about the lawsuits, but I am feeling overwhelmed by the number of legal actions (and by the fact that I'm a not a lawyer, I'm a chemist). Here's a list of existing lawsuits as I understand them now.

• The main Entergy lawsuit against Vermont
• The Entergy request for injunction, so that Vermont does not take action while the main lawsuit is pending
• Vermont's answer to the request for injunction.
• Massachusetts joining the main lawsuit on the side of Vermont.
• Various groups (VPIRG, NEC, CLF) attempting to enter the main Entergy lawsuit on the side of Vermont (as intervenors) and being turned down by the court.
• The same groups filing Amicus Curiae briefs.
• A separate lawsuit claiming that Entergy didn't apply for a water quality permit. This lawsuit is against Entergy, brought by another state agency in Vermont.
• Various groups bringing actions against the NRC, saying that they shouldn't have given Entergy a license extension because of the supposed lack of water permit, or Fukushima, or something. I lose track of these anti-NRC actions very easily. They come so fast and furious around here.

There's more. The Attorney General of Vermont is preparing some kind of suit about the piping. Just a bit late, hey? Also, I think the state passed a Bill of Attainder against Entergy and I want to blog about that.

I would welcome a respectable blog by lawyers about the Vermont Yankee legal situation, even though the VLS lawyers are on the other side of the fence. What I see is something quite different. The VLS blog is a "we should be blogging, right?" blog, practically devoid of content, except for reprints of old articles.

Oh well. I think it is going to be up to me to blog about all these rabbits--I mean, all these lawsuits. I hope the VLS blog can become useful, but so far...well, not really.

Photo of Oakes Hall at Vermont Law School from Wikipedia

Rabbits overrunning the University of Victoria campus, from Wikipedia

55th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs

Today I am hosting the 55th Carnival of Nuclear Energy, bloggers look at the world, including Saudi Arabia, Germany, and what kind of Lessons Learned are possible at this point from Fukushima. It's truly a feast of information!

Germany and the Czech Republic

At Idaho Samzdat, Dan Yurman describes Germany's Nuclear Energy Panic Attack.

Shortly after the extent of the damage to reactors at Fukushima became apparent, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced she was reversing her policy of keeping the nation’s oldest reactors open beyond 2022. A deal put in place by her predecessor called for the eventual closure of all 17 reactors by that date.

There is no middle ground in the nuclear debate in Germany. Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany runs high with polls showing as much as 70% of the population says "no thank you" to nuclear power.

Some sentiment among Green Party members calls for a reduction in Germany's industrial economy and a return to a life style of "off the grid" villages in natural ecosystems. Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic, the utility is moving ahead with its reactor projects, planning three to five new reactors. Perhaps Germans won't have to live "off the grid" after all. There's always "nuclear colonialism." If a neighbor country like the Czech Republic builds nuclear plants, there's nothing wrong with Germany buying the power, right? The map to the right shows a potential nuclear colony of Germany. Much more complete analysis in Yurman's post.

Fukushima Fuel Pools (Red Herrings)

In her blog post, Nuclear Power and the Witch Hunt, Margaret Harding shows that the spent fuel pools at Fukushima are a witch story. They didn’t burn, they did run out of water and caused problems for TEPCO, but we should not over-react in the need to “fix” a problem that isn’t there. There is risk that a fix could create other issues.

Harding's post includes a video of Unit 4 fuel pool, showing the pool intact, the fuel rods intact, the fuel racks intact, and debris in the water from the explosion at Unit 4. Harding is in touch with people in Japan who are figuring out what caused the explosion at that unit: clearly not the fuel pool. Harding notes that we may well have to rethink our fuel storage, but we should do it on the basis of facts, not witch hunts.

The NRC and Nuclear Power

In Nuclear Sanity and Nuclear Insanity, Will Davis of Atomic Power Review describes the evolution of nuclear thinking world-wide (Germany wants to shut down its nuclear plants, Saudi Arabia plans to build 16 nuclear plants) and in the United States. As he points out, we can expect 40 million tonnes more CO2 in the air each year if Germany closes down its nuclear plants. Davis describes the role that nuclear bloggers and others might take to change the NRC's position from insanity (we must PROVE we are doing EVERYTHING possible) to some level of sanity. His post is a call to action.

The Future of Energy in Europe and Arabia

In a series of posts at Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes Saudi Arabia building 16 nuclear reactors by 2030 and Lithuania building two. As usual, his well-referenced post is a pleasure to read.

Wang also notes that Desertec plans to build terrawatts of wind and solar power in North Africa. Desertec is a proposal to build terawatts of wind and solar power in North Africa, which is Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and other countries. This proposal would be to spend $600 billion or more to build wind farms and solar farms in the same politically unstable area where OPEC is now to provide about 17% of europe power needs by 2050. About 110% of the current world nuclear power generation. (2,940 TWh per year). The detailed financial and technical proposal is due in 2012. So currently it is a back of napkin proposal and they hope to progress to vaporware in 2012, all for a bad idea for Europe to fund a solar and wind OPEC by 2050.

Wang describes the consequences to Switzerland and Germany if they phase out nuclear power. Electricity costs will go up and Germany will depend more on coal and fossil fuel.

In another post, Wang points out that instant-phase-out of nuclear power in Germany is running into some snags. German Utility Eon is taking action to recover tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue that will result from the German decision to shut down nuclear prematurely.

That's the trouble when governments take unilateral action without due process. They get sued. Happens in Vermont and it happens in Germany.

• Due Process: it's what makes governments into governments, not tyrants.
• Lawsuits: they are what keep governments from becoming tyrants.

All in all, this Carnival is perfect for a summer evening's reading!

Retrospective

The 54th Blog Carnival was hosted at Idaho Samizdat last week. It includes good news about thorium reactors, discussions about the NRC, and an analysis of passive cooling for small modular reactors. Worth reading! (I had serious internet connection problems last week and was not able to blog or even email, most of the week.)

Map of Czech Republic from Wikimedia.

Anthracite Coal Image from Wikipedia.

North of the Border, East of the Border: Nuclear, Wind, Hydro and Vermont

A friend asked me what I thought of the recent Green Mountain Power (GMP) contract to purchase electricity from Seabrook Station. My blog yesterday on the Seabrook contract has links, charts, cost comparisons and so forth. Today, I decided to share my note to my friend, amended for this post.

Yes Nuclear! Yes Inexpensive Electricity!

Dear Friend,

You sent me a link to Emerson Lynn's blog post about the Seabrook contract and asked my opinion. Yes, I am glad to see this agreement between GMP and Seabrook. I am happy to see a good power purchase agreement for Vermont, and since I am pro-nuclear, I am glad to see power coming reliably from another nuclear facility. I don't consider the difference in price to be substantial: VY bid 4.9, but VY could probably match the Seabrook price (4.7 cents) especially if VY can sell the rest of their power at market prices.

In his post, Lynn describes the "negotiated deal" with HydroQuebec (HQ). The only deal so far with HydroQuebec replaces the power from current HQ contracts: those contracts end in 2016. The new HQ deal does not replace any Vermont Yankee power. This Seabrook contract also only replaces some of the power from Vermont Yankee. There is still a gap in Vermont's power supply for the future.

In other words, many of the uncertainties have not been removed, and power prices are still capable of rising if Vermont Yankee is not in the mix. Much power is bought "at the market" and taking low-priced supplies out of the mix will affect the price.

Still, the Seabrook purchase news is basically good news, and very hopeful for Vermont's future.

NIMBY Alert

At another level, this news is also troubling. It shows a NIMBY attitude that I don't like. "We hate nuclear plants in-state, but we are delighted with cheap power from out-of-state nuclear plants." A friend of mine asked if Vermont is going to end up with hydro plants and nuclear plants lined up on our borders in neighboring countries and states. They would provide Vermont's baseload supply, while Vermont builds nothing by wind turbines. I am sorry to say this could happen.

Aside: Actually, Vermont is not even building wind turbines. It is buying wind turbine power from New Hampshire. GMP made a recent deal for the output of a wind farm in NH, while GMP's Vermont wind project, Lowell Mountain, appears stalled by local opposition. End aside.

The power plants lined up on Vermont's borders will pay taxes and fees to their own states or countries, not to us. They will employ people in Canada or at the New Hampshire seacoast, not Vermonters. The power grid will still have to adjust to the new sources of power, certainly raising some transmission costs. In other words, the purchase from Seabrook is good news, but doesn't mean we don't need Vermont Yankee.

Every time I make a presentation about VY economics I explain that the existing economic studies are about payroll loss and tax loss to the state. No study addresses loss of Vermont jobs because of increased cost of electricity. (I generally show a picture of an iceberg at this point of the presentation---that is, the loss of jobs due to electricity price rise is the hidden effect.)

So, this business of "gosh, we have low-cost power so we are saved" means that "gosh, we have some low-cost power so maybe we are back to having only the economic losses predicted by the studies." That's $60 to $100 million a year loss in economic activity and about $10 million in taxes, including the Clean Energy Development Fund.

Spiritual Problem

The economic loss is a big problem, but maybe not the biggest. Howard Shaffer is fond of saying that Vermont Yankee is Vermont's fair share of the grid. We can't just take from the grid; we have to give back. As a fair share, VY is quite benign. No coal trains, no flooded valleys, no NOx from gas turbines.

However, as I see Vermont right now, though people talk about "community" this or that, many really don't see themselves as part of a community about electricity or jobs or pretty much anything. When I mention job loss if Vermont Yankee closes, one or two enterprising types in the audience will challenge my statement. They will stand up and with a bit of a smirk, remind me that many people who work at Vermont Yankee live in neighboring states. In other words, the loss of a job by a person who lives in Massachusetts but works in Vermont is not a loss that should concern Vermonters.

This attitude drives me nuts.

We buy our power from HQ in Canada. We buy nuclear power from New Hampshire, and even buy wind electricity from New Hampshire. We want to take and take and never give back a kWh to anybody else. The rest of the world exists to supply us.

To me, this is beyond an electricity problem. This is a spiritual problem. I truly worry about this state.

Well! Thank you for asking my opinion, though I probably gave you FAR more opinion than you wanted!

Hope to see you soon!

Best,

Meredith

Lilac image from Wikimedia

It's a lilac image because I have a beautiful lilac bush in full bloom right next to my study window. You can think of the illustration as lilac stationary for a note to a friend.

Nimby and Nukes: Vermont Utility Makes a Deal with Seabrook

The Deal

Yesterday Green Mountain Power (GMP) announced a deal to buy electricity from Seabrook Station in New Hampshire. The deal was at a very good price, 4.66 cents per kWh, less than Vermont Yankee's recent offer price of 4.9 cents, and far less than the 5.8 cents from Hydro-Quebec that led to general rejoicing earlier this year.

The amount of power purchased from Seabrook varies between 15 and 60 MW from year to year. In 2012, GMP will buy 15 MW of power from Seabrook. This amount goes up to 60 MW in 2015. According to the article, GMP now buys 100 MW from Vermont Yankee. (GMP and Central Vermont Public Service share most of the approximately 200 MW that Vermont Yankee supplies to Vermont.)

The GMP-Seabrook contract is for 23 years. However, Seabrook's license is up in twenty years. Seabrook, like Vermont Yankee, is a top-performing plant and New Hampshire doesn't have an Act 160. So I guess signing for twenty-three years is okay for a plant in New Hampshire. Assuming they continue to operate well and get an NRC license renewal, New Hampshire will not stop Seabrook from operating.

There is Still A Big Hole in the Power Supply

So, approximately 60 MW of the 200 MW of Vermont Yankee's instate power will now be replaced by Seabrook power at good price. In Vermont, rejoicing has begun, as shown by Emerson Lynn's post A Nuke Deal for Vermont: the Price is Right at Vermont Tiger. With low prices for IBM, IBM will stay in Vermont. So will Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. The price in this contract is certainly right, but it is a price I am sure Vermont Yankee could match.

Still, 60 MW purchased from Seabrook instead of 600 available from Vermont Yankee (counting the power used by the neighboring states) leaves a significant hole in the power available to the grid. Once again, I use the Department of Public Service graph for electricity supply for Vermont to illustrate.

The filled-in areas in the chart below are committed resources. There's a lot of blank space, not filled in, to the right of 2012. Seabrook's 60 MW is not going to fill it.

Also, in my opinion, the power supply situation is worse than it appears on this chart. Note that the light-blue area near the top expands from almost nothing right now to about 500 GWh in 2016. This is wind energy. But wind energy is simply not coming on-line quite that fast, as I see it. Also, recent studies have shown that capacity factors for inland wind farms are far lower than expected. In a recent blog by Willem Post at the Energy Collective, he notes that measured wind turbine capacity factors in Maine and Vermont have been about half of what might be expected. Therefore, in my opinion, this chart overstates the amount of wind energy that will be available within three to five years.

As usual, double-click on the chart to see a bigger version.

Have We Been Saved By Seabrook?

I don't think so. I am delighted that we will be getting some power, clean reliable nuclear power, at a good price from our neighboring power plant. This may keep the price of electricity down in the region. It will certainly help lower the price of electricity sold by Green Mountain Power. (I buy my power from Green Mountain Power, so I'm happy!) However, there's going to be a lot of power bought at the market prices if Vermont Yankee closes, which is why we have this quote from Green Mountain Power.

"This power contract isn't about Vermont Yankee," said Mary Powell, president of Green Mountain Power. "As we all know, Vermont Yankee is trying to work its way through their challenges, from a legal and regulatory perspective. If they manage their way through that, we've always seen that it would be our desire to have conversations with them."

Jobs and Vermont Yankee

I like to see the emphasis on low electricity prices to keep jobs in Vermont. However, I need to point out that the two major studies of the effect of closing Vermont Yankee did not address the effect of electricity prices on jobs. These reports only looked at job loss and tax loss from shuttering the plant. These reports are the Legislature's Consensus Report, and the IBEW Economic Report, which I have mentioned many times in the past. Their conclusions are that if Vermont Yankee closes:

• Job loss is estimated at 1100 to 1300 jobs.
• Revenue loss is $60 to $93 million a year
• Tax loss is $6 to $12 million a year.

These facts have not changed.

Closing Vermont Yankee will still have a devastating effect on the economy of southern Vermont. This is true even if we buy some power at a good rate from another nuclear plant.

End Note: I had a post yesterday at ANS Nuclear Cafe about solar and the grid. I feel that people need to understand the role of the grid in net-zero solar installations.

Update: Art Woolf blogged at Vermont Tiger yesterday about this purchase and reliability. Woolf's post started with James Moore's of VPIRG's statement: We’d prefer to see our state’s utilities moving away from all forms of dirty and unreliable power, including nuclear energy.

Second Update: NEI Nuclear Notes also has a good post on this: Replacing the Foot You Shot Yourself In.

Image of Seabrook Station from Wikipedia

Vermont Committed Power chart from Presentation by Dave Lamont of Vermont Department of Public Service, March 2011

The Fifty-Third Carnival Of Nuclear Energy Bloggers and a Welcome to the Blogrolll

The 53rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Cool Hand Nuke today. Once again, it is a wide-ranging group of blogs, including the questions of whether natural gas will save us (Nuclear Green), whether future ships will be powered with fission (Atomic Insights) and the hopes of Waste to Power, aka recycling (Canadian Energy issues). The Blue Ribbon Commission shows Failure to Launch (Idaho Samizdat) and gets some advice from nuclear bloggers (ANS Nuclear Cafe). Next Big Future looks at new types of reactors, and also points out that China is getting into the business of exporting reactors. Cool Hand Nuke itself blogs about the fact that Fukushima has had pretty minimal effects on new nuclear builds, except of course, in Germany.

This Carnival also introduced me to a new blog, Deregulate the Atom, by Rick Maltese, with many distinguished guest bloggers. Deregulate the Atom is a well-established blog, with provocative posts such as NRC hearing: Yucca has become inconvenient distraction to other performance issues. I think it is not a new blog, it is just new to me! At any rate, welcome, Rick Maltese, to my pro-nuclear blog roll!