30th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs

Asia: The New Frontier for Nuclear

Several nuclear energy blog posts this week explore the new builds in Asia. At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Dan Yurman reviews China's ambitious nuclear program. China is planning 40 GWe of nuclear by 2020. Will China be able to execute its ambitious plans? A target of 40 GWe by 2020 could involve at least 30 new reactors. However, the official target is almost 120 GWe. Yurman discusses China's targets, challenges and plans in his post. For example, China would have to become self-sufficient in reactor design.

Brian Wang at Next Big Future also looks toward China. In An Even Bigger Century of Nuclear Energy, Wang shows that China has been able to maintain Walmart type prices for its nuclear builds. In McKinsey Proposes a Green Revolution Development Plan for China, Wang reviews a McKinsey report from late 2009, and notes that China is moving faster on nuclear and green technologies than that report recommended. In a related post, Wang looks at the Chinese energy mix for now, 2015 and 2020. And finally...what is China planning to do with all this electricity? Here's one answer. In a post on amazing facts of China's high speed rail buildout, Wang points out that by the end of 2012, China may have more miles of high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined.

Looking at the costs in China, however, Charles Barton describes how molten salt reactors, built in the United States, could still be the most cost-effective way to produce nuclear power. As Barton explains, Keeping Up with China may mean leapfrogging current technology.

North America Moves Ahead

Current technology in North America is doing very well: David Bradish of NEI Nuclear Notes shares some statistics. Nuclear power electricity production in the United States is on track to break all previous yearly records. So far, 2007 was the record year for nuclear generation. At the end of October in 2007, nuclear had provided 669.5 bkWh. This year, nuclear provided 670.0 bkWh by the same date.

North of the border (that is, the border between the U. S. and Canada) the situation is decidedly mixed. In Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman describes how the Ontario provincial government plans to build two more nuclear plants at Darlington, and refurbish ten more reactors. However, the Ontario provincial government also wants to sell (privatize) Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL). This is the company that would build the reactor. As usual, Yurman gives insights into these murky waters.

North America Falls Behind

Steve Aplin of Canandian Energy Issues also casts some light into the murk. Ontario has a long-term energy plan that includes phasing out its coal plants. However, the plan includes replacing most of the coal plants by natural gas. Aplin explains why this is not a particularly good idea. He concludes by pointing out that the plan is a pdf document, no more. It's written in pixels, not stone. It can be changed.

Meanwhile, at Atomic Insights, Rod Adams brings a blast from the past: at year-old document on radiation from gas and production water in the Marcellus shale. Did anybody except Adams ever read this document? I hope so. Thousands of wells are going to be drilled, in thickly-settled farm county, and someone should be thinking about the effects.

Speaking of the countryside, in my Yes Vermont Yankee post, I temporarily stop describing protests against the nuclear plant in southern Vermont. Instead, I describe protests against the proposed biomass plant in southern Vermont. Just in case you thought renewables would make people happy.

Not exactly a blog post, but Cool Hand Nuke helps you nuclear-power your browser. You can bring nuclear news, views, and job openings to your browser with Cool-Hand Nuke's free widgets. (I think they are widgets. Maybe they are plug-ins. Anyhow, they are free and they are all about nuclear.)

The Carnival Calls

Come to the Carnival! It's always fun. It's never cold and windy. The comestibles are brain food, not cotton candy. Something to learn! Something to see! Always something new!

Russia. Yucca Mountain. Serious Subjects. Silly Videos.

I'm not quite sure why I think these videos go together, but somehow I feel they do.

The first video is real. Vladimir Putin teasing Germany about not building new nuclear plants.

The second video is a satire about Jaczko and Yucca Mountain, shamelessly stolen from Dan Yurman's blog yesterday. Dan found it on a Wall Street Journal blog. Maybe I didn't steal it. Maybe it is just going viral, and I am helping.

Enjoy!

The 29th Carnival of Nuclear Energy

The 29th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is up at Idaho Samizdat. I need to start by saying I am grateful to Dan Yurman for putting this post together over the Thanksgiving weekend! Many of the linked posts are spectacular.

Gwyneth Cravens and Dan Yurman link to their op-ed in the New York Post about Indian Point. Areva North America points to a William Tucker article in the American Spectator about the nuclear renaissance. Cool Hand Nuke describes how TVA may buy a six-pack of modular reactors. In my own blog, I explain why Vermont Yankee will probably receive a purchase offer.

In the international sphere, Charles Barton points out how little energy the Germans get from their photovoltaic investment. Rod Adams notes that mainstream media has just discovered that AP 1000 technology (design documents, etc) has been transferred to China. Rod posted about this when the deal happened, in 2007. At Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes how China is reducing coal consumption by building nuclear plants. This business of reducing coal consumption is happening all over. NEI Nuclear notes describes how Ontario may go nuclear; the province hopes to eliminate coal plants by 2014. Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk says that Poland has just joined the international Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA. However, United Kingdom may drop out of the NEA.

In a very important post, ANS Nuclear Cafe discusses how we talk about nuclear, and whether or not we truly communicate.

Reading the Carnival is a treat! After you read it, you will have a lot to communicate about!

Protests Grow in Southern Vermont. About Biomass.

The Biomass Facility

Pownal Vermont is the proposed home of a 29 MW biomass plant and wood pellet facility. Like Vernon, home of Vermont Yankee, Pownal is in southern Vermont, close to the Massachusetts border. Pownal is in the western half of Vermont, near New York State, while Vernon is in the eastern half, near New Hampshire.

People in Pownal and neighboring Massachusetts are vigorously protesting the biomass plant. About eighteen protesters recently lined the road to the proposed plant (there's a great picture in that link). At meetings in local churches, groups against biomass have described many possible hazards, including:

• biomass plants used as incinerators
• biomass plants starting fires in neighboring areas
• particulate from biomass escaping the very best scrubbers, and lodging in people's lungs

A biomass opposition website contains extensive information about the hazards of biomass, along with specific ideas on how to fight this plant. Plant opponents also attack the safety record of the company proposing to build the plant.

If the company breaks ground for the plant before the end of the year, the developers may be eligible for $50 to $80 million in federal grants. Naturally, plant opponents are eager to slow them down. As Vermont Digger reports: Pownal resident Doreen Forney said she wants to see the process slowed. “At least be thorough with your investigation of this company,” she said. However, it is not just this company that is the problem. Vermont Digger reports that Rachel Smolker of Biofuel Watch Group states that “Big oil sees this (biomass) as a way out of their oil dilemma...There are a lot of powers at play here,””

Still, some local residents want the plant. Others feel that biomass money should be used for solar and wind power instead.

Thanksgiving

Why does this all sound so very familiar?

I give thanks that I don't plan to investigate the pros and cons of this biomass plant.

It is interesting to observe yet more excitement about power plants on the Vermont/Massachusetts border. That is why I decided to blog about this protest. But I'm not going any further with this.

For electric power production, I prefer heat engines based on nuclear fission. I'm going to leave it at that.

Woodpile image from Wikimedia

Will Entergy Get an Offer On Vermont Yankee? Three Myths Dispelled

Right after the election, Entergy announced Vermont Yankee was on the market. The local response was completely predictable: "Nobody in their right mind would buy that plant!" I disagree. I think someone will buy it.

I need to point out that I have no insider information on this. I only know what I read in the paper.

Myth One: Nobody will offer for that old rustbucket.

In the eighties and early 90s, it became clear that a company that owned only one nuclear plant could not run it well. Some nuclear plants in this situation were closed (Rancho Seco, Trojan). Most nuclear plants were purchased by big companies. Today, a company owns more than one nuclear plant, or it owns no nuclear plants at all.

In other words, the only companies that might offer for Vermont Yankee are companies that already own nuclear plants. These companies know how to judge a nuclear plant, and they know that Vermont Yankee is a good one:

• Green rating from NRC
• Recent power runs of more than 500 days each
• Good relationships with the on-site union
• Industry-wide award for innovative inspection equipment
• Caught and repaired its tritium leak much faster than many other plants which had similar leaks.

Anyone who owns a nuclear plant would like Vermont Yankee.

Myth Two: Vermont Yankee doesn't have a license to operate past 2012, so nobody will want it.

A buyer can make a contingent offer. We made a contingent offer on a house at one point. Buying our new house was contingent on selling our old house for a certain sum by a certain date. Such offers are very common in all sorts of contracts. Our house offer was accepted, and the next phase of the purchase was called clearing the contingencies. Then we closed on the house. We owned it.

You can do this with a power plant, too. "We offer you this much, contingent on having license renewal approved."

Can the new utility clear the contingencies? Or will it be an offer with no closure? Nobody can completely predict the outcome of contingent offers, or they wouldn't need to be contingent. But I think the purchasing utility will sweeten the deal for the legislature and clear the contingencies. Perhaps the new utility will supply more money for the Clean Energy Development Fund. Perhaps it will make a one-time tax payment or cut a really good deal for a power purchase agreement.

In any case, there will be a new set of money on the table, and Vermont has a $112 million budget shortfall next year. I think a new utility can finalize the deal. However, nobody really knows about a contingent deal until it is near closing. That's why I headed this post "Will Entergy get an offer" rather than "Will Entergy sell the plant." I feel confident Entergy will get an offer.

Myth Three: The shortfall in the Decommissioning Fund means nobody will buy the plant

The decommissioning fund contains about $350 million, and decommissioning is estimated to cost about $800 million. This isn't actually a killer. If the plant operates for another 20 years, it will be easy to fill the fund completely with money from electricity sales.

Some opponents take the position that the customers buying nuclear electricity should not have to pay for decommissioning. They believe that decommissioning money needs to fall like a golden rain from heaven, or be some sort of charge against Entergy stock in the future. That is a very unrealistic view of finance. Luckily, neither golden rain nor charges against stock will be necessary. Nuclear power plants can provide the cheapest power on the market and still put a few mills per kWh away for decommissioning.

I don't know how the deal will be structured, but I know it is possible.The status of the decommissioning fund will not deter a buyer who plans to operate the plant for another twenty years.

In short, I predict that Entergy will receive an offer on Vermont Yankee.

Currency image and golden eagle dollar image from Wikimedia Commons.

The 28th Carnival of Nuclear Energy

The 28th Carnival of Nuclear Energy is up at Next Big Future. This fascinating compendium of blogs covers some big international questions.

• Canadian Energy Issues reports that nuclear power is subsidizing gas and solar energy in Canada.
• ANS Nuclear Cafe shows that United Arab Emirates are on-track for new nuclear power plants, and working well with their Korean vendors.
• At Idaho Samizdat, Patrick Moore looks at the big picture, from early days of the environmental movement until today.
• Nuclear Green shows you how to track, in real time, the solar PV power output in Germany. Hint, it doesn't look very good, especially at night.
• This blog looks at where our energy will come from, once renewables are in place. Fossil and nuclear are still the majority of our energy supply.

• Brave New Climate watches energy projections through 2060.
• Next Big Future describes mining, commercial shipping powered by nuclear, and tracks nuclear energy production in 2008, 2009, and so far in 2010.

As usual, it's a feast! Far more nourishing than cotton candy and just as much fun!

Some Thoughts on Decommissioning and Carpetbaggers

Vermont Yankee Decommissioning

I think Vermont Yankee will continue to operate, but the opponents are having a great deal of fun planning the decommissioning. There was a big meeting in Brattleboro late last month, with all sorts of speeches and excitement from the opponents. Howard Shaffer attended and blogged about it at the ANS Nuclear Cafe this week. Quoting that blog:

They demanded a “Citizens Oversight Panel” to allow them to dig in to the process, and in the words of one of the panelists, Ray Shadis, to “advocate.” It turns out that this means agitate for unrealistically low post cleanup exposure standards. They achieved this in the past by getting state standards to be lower than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard. This has had the effect of making decommissionings much more expensive. They boasted that, regarding the decommissionings of Maine Yankee and Yankee, the owners had to go back to the ratepayers for more money, which will be in the ratepayers’ bills for years.

I think it is only fair to note that Ray Shadis commented on this post:

I regret that I may have left you with the impression that environmental and safety enhancements we advocated at Maine Yankee drove up big costs. That was not the case.

Since I am quoting Ray, I will also quote something else. Howard emailed me that Ray made this statement at the meeting. I trust Howard to be an accurate reporter.

"We had them by the short hairs because we were intervenors." Ray Shadis

Those Workers

Howard also picked up a handout from the Vermont Citizen's Action Network and Citizen's Awareness Network, two related organizations. This handout about decommissioning was distributed at the meeting. Here's a quote:

Although waiting the proposed twenty years cuts costs and lowers worker exposure, Entergy shouldn't be trusted. Its systemic mismanagement and dishonesty makes delaying cleanup too dangerous. (emphasis added by blogger)

Apparently, in their view, increasing worker exposure is not "dangerous." Something else (delaying?) is dangerous to someone (intervenors?). Workers are a kind of untermenschenen whose safety does not matter.

Well, I could go on. For example, there's a whole anti-Yankee program to get towns in other states involved. I'm not going to review that effort in this post.

The Green Fields of Vernon?

An important part of the anti-Vermont Yankee agenda is to have decommissioning done to "greenfield" standards, instead of traditional NRC standards. In greenfield standards, the site basically becomes a park, with little trace of its industrial past. In traditional decontamination, most of the site can be released for other uses within a few years. In other words, new industrial facilities can be built there. After all, the site probably has switch yards, areas for water cooling of various processes, etc. It would be a great site for another industry.

The actual citizens of Vernon, many of whom work at the plant, have applied for a grant to study options if the plant closes. According to the Brattleboro Reformer, they plan to:

look into scenarios without the plant on-line, such as analyzing tax incentives for new industries, potential redevelopment of the site and reviewing how other towns dealt with closing of a nuclear plant.

The people in Vernon would rather have a new plant on-site than a park. They won't have this option if the intervenors once again grab the short hairs.

Carpet Baggers

This whole thing made me think a bit about who the intervenors are. Shadis is a regular commuter from his home in Maine. Katz lives in Massachusetts. People come in from all over to fight against Vermont Yankee. From the testimony of their own brochures, these people don't give a hoot about the health of people who work at the plant. They don't think that the people in Vernon are citizens who might choose to make land-use decisions for their own town.

My advice to the intervenors. If you want a park where the plant is located in Vernon, get the idea onto the Warning for the Vernon Town Meeting. That's the traditional Vermont thing to do.

Oh, you can't do that because you don't live in Vernon? Aw shucks. Lemme tell you about how we do things in Vermont. It's not Massachusetts or Louisiana, you know.

Image of dry cask storage from NRC student information area.