63rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy

The 63rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is up at Next Big Future. Several of the posts are about the Vermont Yankee refueling decision.

• Margaret Harding, formerly of GE, does a careful analysis of whether the fuel rods could be used at another plant (not easily, not cost-effectively).
• Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat puts the matter bluntly: Entergy has placed a $100 million dollar bet, despite a hostile political climate.
• And of course, I write about the refueling decision at Yes Vermont Yankee. I explain why I thought Entergy wouldn't place the big bet, and how glad I am that they bought the fuel.

But the world does not revolve completely around Vermont Yankee. There's also regulation.

• Margaret Harding analyzes nuclear regulation and politics. The choices do not make her happy: the Department of Energy is misnamed (too much of its work is military), NRC has become politicized (hello, Chairman Reid...I mean...Chairman Jaczko) and it is unlikely that IAEA will step up to the plate effectively.
• Dan Yurman at ANS Nuclear Cafe has a multi-part post in which nuclear energy professionals comment on the NRC task force recommendations for regulatory change.
• Atomic Power Review describes how the nuclear regulation scandal is widening in Japan.

Many of the other posts are about new builds, new designs, and some sales:

• At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman asks if Canada gave away the store int its sale of AECL
• At Next Big Future, Brian Wang reports on the evolution of the Terrapower Traveling Wave Reactor, partially funded by Bill Gates of Microsoft. The design has gotten simpler. It looks more like a regular reactor nowadays. (Who wudda thought?)
• Rod Adams of Atomic Insights encourages building new reactors instead of wind turbines. One of the clear problems with wind energy was shown in the recent heat wave. When it's really hot and muggy, the wind is quiet, too. It wouldn't be so hot and muggy if there were a nice breeze...
• Next Big Future describes the continuing work on the new Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor in South Korea.
• Meredith Angwin, publishing on a local news blog, explains that Vermont Senator Sanders doesn't just dislike Vermont Yankee, he hates everything nuclear. He's proud of being the only person on his Senate committee to vote against research funding for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

Finally, in the great tradition of Ratatouille (the film, not the food), Nutcracker Publishing announces a children's book about nuclear energy. In this book, hard-working rats explain how a nuclear power plant works. It may be the first children's book that is not anti-nuclear.

Come to the Carnival! News, opinions, ideas, no cotton candy! A treat for old and young!

Getting Ready for the Trial: Entergy Withdraws Email Request

This video was posted by Vermont Digger on June 3, 2010, at a Shumlin press conference. The two speakers are Peter Shumlin and Shap Smith, respectively the President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate, and the Speaker of the House. These are key Vermont legislators. They are expressing their concerns about Entergy. All their concerns are with existing and possible leaks of tritium and strontium and cesium and...all kinds of radioactivity.

In face, there was only a tritium leak: Shumlin's statements about radioactive strontium in children's teeth is sheer grandstanding. (See note below* for more on strontium.)

A reporter asks about the NRC (about 1:30 seconds into the video), and Shumlin answers that in his opinion, the NRC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the nuclear industry. In other words, it is up to Vermont legislators like Shumlin and Shap to protect the people of Vermont from leaking radiation.

The Minds of Vermont Legislators

I have posted this ancient video because one of the key points of the Entergy lawsuit against Vermont is that the Vermont legislature based its assessment of the plant on safety, particularly radiation safety. Judgments of radiation safety are reserved to the NRC, not the states, by federal law.

Determining legislative intent is an important aspect of the litigation. That is: what were legislators thinking when they voted to keep the plant from operating?

To understand this intent, Entergy requested many legislative emails. Today, the Brattleboro Reformer reported that Judge Murtha denied Entergy's request for emails. The Reformer article reports that Entergy wanted ten years worth of emails. However, Entergy's request took place in a closed session with the Judge. I am reserving judgment on how many emails Entergy requested. There may be more information later on this subject. At any rate, Entergy will not obtain the emails it requested.

Did Entergy Need the Emails?

I am not a lawyer, and it is possible that Entergy would have found a fabulous smoking gun in one of those emails ("That plant is not SAFE, we must CLOSE it!") On the other hand, to my not-a-lawyer brain, the video above shows the same thing. The video is evidence that the Senate and House were deciding about Vermont Yankee on the basis of radiation safety. I mean, Shumlin and Shap say it, over and over. The claim they have to do something about the radiation leaks (and possible leaks and leaks of material that never actually leaked) from this plant. They have to do it, not the NRC.

Shumlin wasn't hiding his motivations. Neither was Shap Smith. If Judge Murtha just watches this five-minute video of our two leading Vermont legislators, it's probably as good as all the emails in the world. And shorter, too.

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

* More about Strontium

Right at the source of the leak, some strontium was found in soil. About two pick-up trucks of soil contaminated with strontium was removed from that spot and disposed in a low-level waste repository. Right around the leak, the water may have carried a small amount of particulate that never got very far: the soil acted as a filter, catching the particulate. Or the water may have carried a small amount of dissolved strontium that was quickly caught by the clay minerals of the soil, the soil again acting as a filter. At any rate, there was no further strontium detected further away in the soil, and none was ever detected in any well-water on site.

Shumlin and Smith speak as if the groundwater was contaminated with strontium and unsafe for children. This just was not so. There was never any strontium found in well-water. These claims are Shumlin and Smith drawing ignorant conclusions about radiation safety. The short description of their actions is "grandstanding."

New Facebook Page for Save Vermont Yankee. Yes VY and Technorati

Like Save Vermont Yankee! Please Like the Page!

Facebook, in their eternal wisdom, decided that Groups have few members and Pages have many fans. This is moderately interesting, unless you are an administrator on a Group that is Too Big (around 1200 members) and gets "archived." The Group was Save Vermont Yankee and most people can still see it (I can't) but we can't do much with it.

So Cavan Stone and I started a Facebook Page, also called Save Vermont Yankee. Unfortunately, Facebook has hidden the Group membership list (yeah, stupid of them, so tell me about it). The new Page has about five fans right now. Please Like it by clicking the new Facebook button at the top right of this page!

Actually, I think the Page will be more flexible than the Group was, but transitions are difficult.

Technorati

Just as I was beginning to feel defeated by Internet technology (or maybe by Facebook) I got a nice email from a friend. He had encouraged me to register my blog on Technorati. I registered it last month and promptly forgot about it.

My friend emailed me yesterday and said: "Wow, your blog is doing great. Lovely authority numbers and in the top 100 Green blogs." (There are about 9000 Green blogs on Technorati) Here's a link to the blog at number 75 (but Technorati changes rankings every day)

Glad my friend told me!

About Entergy's Decision to Buy Fuel: Shaffer on WCAX and Angwin at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Entergy decided to buy fuel for Vermont Yankee. A good video about the decision shows Howard Shaffer being interviewed at his home on Mascoma Lake by WCAX. Don Kreis of Vermont Law School is also interviewed. Kreis says that plant opponents should not be too overjoyed with the injunction ruling. (Kreis is a plant opponent).

Meanwhile, I have a post on the subject today at ANS Nuclear Cafe. In this post,Vermont Yankee, Refueling, and Solving the Problem of Intermittent Energy Sources, I expand my Vermont Yankee outlook to include New Hampshire. Vermont will purchase power from the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire. I comment on the fact that a local green-energy company (SustainX) will move to Seabrook to obtain inexpensive power for its operation.

As a bonus, I would like to recommend Shay Totten's blog on the subject (Totten blogs for 7 Days, a Vermont weekly newspaper) and Malt Wald's well-researched blog for the New York Times. Wald quotes Margaret Harding, one of my early Blue Ribbon winners. Harding, a consultant who is a former manager at General Electric's Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group, is an authority on everything related to BWRs.

Enjoy watching and reading!

Vermont Yankee Will Refuel!

I was wrong. In a post a few hours ago, I said that I predicted that Entergy would not order fuel for the October outage. I thought they would look at Judge Murtha's ruling denying Entergy an injunction. I thought they would decide that the positive things Murtha said about their main case were not grounds enough to place a $60 million dollar bet by ordering fuel.

This morning, Entergy announced that it will order fuel to be loaded in the October outage.

Reading the Entergy press release, it is clear that Entergy did not base their decision on a tea-leaf analysis of Judge Murtha's words about the injunction. Instead, Entergy's assessed the strength of their own case. Good for them!

Entergy looked at the big picture and the law itself. Meanwhile, I let myself get caught up in microscopic examination of Murtha's statements and whether Murtha's statements were enough basis for ordering fuel.

I am glad to have been wrong about this! I am glad Entergy is ordering fuel!

(Also, I would not recommend hiring me as a fortune teller. If you were thinking of doing so, don't do it.)

Part of the press release is quoted below:

New Orleans, La. – Today Entergy Corporation (NYSE: ETR) communicated to its employees that the company's board of directors voted to approve the fabrication of fuel and the refueling of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in October. This will be the plant's 29th refueling.

While the company has received a 20-year license extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the state of Vermont has refused to grant a certificate of public good to continue operating beyond March 21, 2012. That issue is currently being litigated before the U.S. District Court for the state of Vermont.

"Entergy's board of directors carefully reviewed the merits of our case and the arguments put forth by all parties during the recent hearing in District Court when we requested a preliminary injunction against the state of Vermont taking any actions to close Vermont Yankee," said J. Wayne Leonard, Entergy's chairman and chief executive officer. "Our board believes both the merits of the company's legal position and the record strongly support its decision to continue to trial scheduled to begin on Sep. 12. On that basis, the decision was made to move forward with the refueling as planned."

Predictions on Vermont Yankee: I Don't Think They Will Order Fuel, and It's All About the Lawsuit

I decided to make some predictions, since everyone else is making predictions about Vermont Yankee. The question:

Will Vermont Yankee order fuel for the October outage?

My Prediction: Vermont Yankee will not order fuel

In a hearing in late June, Vermont Yankee asked the Federal Court in Brattleboro (Judge Murtha) for an injunction to prevent the state from shutting down the plant while the main Entergy v. Vermont lawsuit was in progress. Judge Murtha did not grant the injunction, which means that Vermont Yankee has to make its decision on re-ordering fuel for the October outage without knowing if it will be allowed to operate past March of next year.

Vermont Yankee said that they had to place the fuel order by July 23 to be able to hold the next outage in October. The choices for VY are:

• Order fuel (about $60 million dollars worth) and perhaps not be able to use it because it is 18 months worth of fuel and the plant may be shut down in March (six months after refueling)
• Don't order fuel, and run out of fuel in October

VY was expected to order fuel by July 23. Everyone was waiting to see if they would order. However, on Friday, July 22, Larry Smith of Entergy made this statement to the press: "There will be no announcement from Entergy today about anything," And so the weekend has gone by in silence about the fuel order.

Vermont Yankee opponents disagree on whether or not they will order fuel, but most seem to think they will order it. In a blog post by Terri Hallenbeck at the Burlington Free Press, Arnie Gundersen said that ordering fuel was not actually so big a gamble, because the fuel could be used at a different plant. Bob Stannard, another opponent, expects that VY will buy the fuel and "keep going like nothing happened." Meanwhile, over at Vermont Digger, representatives from another opponent group claim VY hasn't made a profit recently, and it should "know when to fold'em." This group stops short, however, of saying that Entergy will not buy fuel.

It's All About the Ruling

I think they won't order fuel. One assumption opponents seem to make is that Entergy asking for an injunction was a big bluff, and the judge called the bluff. Others predict VY will buy the fuel, and VY asking for an injunction was "all a bluff" or "making threats to the judge" or whatever.

I don't think it was a bluff. I am making my prediction because VY hasn't announced yet. What is the delay?

• Entergy knew its cost structure and the price of fuel ages ago. No new information there.
• The only new information recently was the judge's ruling, which went against Entergy, but also gave reasons to believe he agreed with some of Entergy's arguments.

The judge said Entergy had a business decision to make, complicated by litigation. No. It's all a litigation decision at this point. What did the judge mean in his ruling? Are the judge's statements strong enough to take a $60 million gamble? That is what Entergy has been wrestling with all week, in my opinion.

I think Entergy will take a middle course. They won't order fuel, but they won't throw in the towel, either. They will continue with the litigation, and assuming they win, they will order fuel then.

It seems to take between two and three months to get fuel ordered, but plants can go into lay-up for that length of time. That is expensive, but not killer, if you are going to run for another twenty years. The plant would have a four month outage in October, rather than a one-month outage.

On the other hand, faced with a four-month outage, they might indeed choose not to continue even with the court case. I don't like this scenario, but it is a possible consequence of the judge's ruling.

In other words, I think the judge did "call Entergy's bluff." Except that Entergy wasn't bluffing about the need for the injunction.

My Hope

I hope that today or tomorrow will prove me wrong.

Also: I think people know this, but I think I better re-state it now. I have NO inside information from Entergy. I base my blogs on what I read in the paper and on-line, public meetings I attend, and occasional private emails from people interested in the plant. (These people are not Entergy managers.)

Painting by Mikhail Vrubel, 1905, The Fortune Teller

62nd Carnival Of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The 62nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is up at Idaho Samizdat. Dan Yurman put it together, and he did a great job.

One theme: how are the power plants doing as the Heat Is On? Steve Aplin tracks how wind production in Ontario has nothing to do with electricity demand in the province (not a real surprise) while Charles Barton notes that in a place like Dallas, summer air conditioning is necessary for health (or survival of older people). Still, Greenpeace keeps rejecting nuclear in favor of gas plants.

Meanwhile, at Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus discusses how the "Heat is On" in Japan (in another sense) may encourage the Japanese to be more open about problems. She notes that the culture of Japan sometimes makes it very hard to admit errors. She worked in Japan, and has some important things to say about cover-ups and culture. It can be very hard to write about such things today: we never want to criticize others for doing things differently. However, in some circumstances, doing things one way or another has big consequences. Marcus does a great job of describing the situation.

I fear I will end up with a post as long as the Carnival post, so I will go quickly through the rest of the entries.

• Rod Adams reviews research that shows that radiation can slow the growth of cancer at early stages. Or, as he puts it, a little radiation can delay the onset cancer until after you have died (of old age) anyway.
• Margaret Harding discusses the political landscape of nuclear energy.
• Next Big Future discusses India's uranium mine, China's Fast Neutron reactor (now attached to the grid in China) and how nuclear energy is one of ten technologies that can slow global warming.
• My post, Half-Full and Half-Empty, about Entergy's choices, is also in the Carnival
• At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Dan Yurman discusses India's nuclear choices, especially about liability issues.

When its really hot, you need something cool and cheerful. The Carnival is it! Thank you Dan, for putting it together.