Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Butch Otter and Idaho Nuclear Tourism

Idaho Governor Butch Otter recently said some warming things about nuclear energy.
Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter said collaboration with the private sector is crucial to improving education in the state, and nuclear energy and advanced nuclear manufacturing will connect the state government, universities and the private sector.
This makes sense. Despite not having any commercial nuclear facilities, the presence of the Idaho National Labs and the state’s history with the atom makes it a natural to encourage development.
Otter said that nuclear power now accounts for about 20 percent of the energy produced in the U.S. And over the next 25 years, that demand will increase by 37 percent.
Experts estimate that 360 new nuclear power plants will have to be built to meet the growing need, and Otter wants Idaho to take the lead.
No governor is going to say no to new business, of course, and Idaho is well-positioned to tout its affinity for nuclear manufacturing. Regardless, it’s good to see Otter welcoming nuclear expansion in his state.
---
One of Gov. Otter’s comments struck us:
“We've got a great past in history. The very first city in the world was Arco, Idaho, which was lit by nuclear energy, the atom,” said Otter. [Let’s assume the reporter did not catch Otter’s statement completely.]
The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity commercially was Pennsylvania’s Shippingport in 1957. The first one to generate electricity for domestic use was the Borax III reactor in Arco (current population: 995). It went online in 1955 and represented the first attempt to join nuclear energy to the grid, powering local homes and businesses. It was a test, of course, and not meant to be ongoing, but Arco’s brush with nuclear history has defined it ever since.
What does that mean? Well, for starters, should you happen to be in town July 16, you can attend Arco’s Atomic Days, which sounds to me like an old-fashioned county fair. I remember those growing up in Georgia, though with a heavier focus on 4-F activities.

I can’t say that Atomic Days has much of a nuclear pickup aside from its name. Here’s the list of activities for Saturday July 18:
Fun Run
Softball Tournament
Horse Shoe Tournament
Volleyball Tournament
Atomic Days Parade and Ping Pong Ball Drop
To be fair, The Atomic Days rodeo comes through on Friday. That should be fun.
Atomic Days by itself might not lend itself to true nuclear tourism. This does, though (from visitor roderick19 at Trip Advisor):
Located near Arco, Idaho, EBR-I Atomic Museum, a National Historic Landmark, recounts the history of the world's first electricity generating nuclear power plant and a successor project, EBR-II.
An orientation video relies on interviews with EBR-I engineers and workers to place EBR-I in historic context. Exhibits describe how the facility was commissioned, built and operated and how EBR-I contributed to further developments related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
An exhibit in the EBR-II section provides a control panel for hands-on experience in running a nuclear power facility. Another exhibit discusses the geology of southern Idaho and attempts to explain why a nuclear reaction was build over a major aquifer in a volcanic region.
Use the available brochure to take the self-guided tour, or sign up for a guide-led tour. Highly recommended. Free. Open Memorial Day through Labor Day. If time allows, a quick trip through nearby Atomic City might be interesting. This once bustling town is now almost a ghost town, but it shows traces of its past ties to the nuclear power industry.
EBR is the Experimental Breeder Reactor, the predecessor to Borax III. It famously lit four light bulbs in 1951, the first generation of electricity by nuclear power.
If you want to visit the nearby Idaho National Labs, you have to arrange things with them. They only hold tours for groups, so get up an atomic club and plan for a mid-July trip. That way, you can take in the rodeo, the EBR-I Atomic Museum and the labs. Arco might be dining out on its (admittedly significant) brush with nuclear history, but it’s a pretty hardy meal.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

EPA’s Clean Power Plan Needs Nuclear Energy On The Menu

Matt Wald
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI.

It’s so obvious that it shouldn’t bear repeating, but it does: If you’re worried about climate change, one early, easy remedy is to preserve nuclear power plants that are already running. If you are facing limits on carbon emissions, don’t shut down perfectly serviceable merchant nuclear plants, just because cheap natural gas has left them, for now, a few bucks out of the money in the competitive electricity markets.

Last Thursday the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a group made up of officials from 42 states and the District of Columbia, plus 116 metropolitan areas, released its 465-page “Menu of Options” for complying with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan (Section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act).

We could quibble with some details, like describing nuclear technology as “mature.” It is highly developed, but it has evolved markedly in the last 20 years, and that will continue. Don’t discount the idea of new designs and fresh reactor concepts that will change the energy world in the 2020s or 2030s.

We could also argue with the report’s characterization of nuclear power as not renewable; when circumstances favor it, the world will build plants that make more fuel than they consume, and can go back to pull energy resources out of spent fuel.

But the menu makes two very clear points. First, drawing on a finding of the EPA, it concludes, “preserving the availability of existing units that might otherwise be retired is a cost-effective way to reduce GHG emissions.” (In fact, taking a reactor out of the mix now is a bit like trying to pilot a ship through a storm, deciding that it will be necessary to bail, and instead of pumping water out of the bilge, pumping it in.)
Nuclear energy. Down in the weeds, but in a sweet spot.
And second, “zero emissions” are never precisely zero, but they get pretty close. The study lists a cradle-to-grave, “lifecycle” estimate of emissions, including construction, fabrication, fuel processing, etc, for twelve technologies, based in hundreds of separate studies. The handbook gives an upper and lower bound. Nuclear is, to use the technical term, down in the weeds, lower than biopower and photovoltaics, in the ballpark with geothermal, and a smidgen above wind. Combined cycle natural gas, which rules the market for the time being – as long as carbon emissions are completely free, and emissions of other air pollutants are not counted in dollar terms – are about ten times higher; coal, depending on the technology, is twelve to fifteen times higher.

The handbook also compares “levelized costs,” (see below) that is, costs that take into account fuel, construction expense, and the lifetime of the asset. These, too, are expressed in a range. For the central estimate, new nuclear is, in fact, pricey, but not nearly as expensive as the two forms of solar – photovoltaic cells, or thermal systems, which use the sun’s heat to boil water.
Priced more competitively than you might think.
Energy from wind can be slightly cheaper, but you don’t get to pick when the wind blows.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Google and Facebook’s Nuclear-driven Data Centers

A Greenpeace initiative that’s actually kind of interesting is its drive to get large scale data centers – such as those run by Google, Facebook and Apple – to use more renewable energy to run them. They call it Clicking Clean.

Greenpeace operates in an area where the practical -  which, after all, is what electricity is – intersects with the idealistic, if one defines idealism fairly narrowly, i.e., as what Greenpeace favors.

That’s where data centers come in. There’s a cluster of them in North Carolina, which, in part, has to do with the state’s efforts to foster high-tech development. I’ve had a couple of friends migrate to the Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham) to pursue their careers, so it’s having an impact on the east coast at least. But it likely also has something to do with plentiful electricity

But here’s the problem for Greenpeace.

Greenpeace says Duke’s Green Source Rider, proposed in 2013 at the urging of Google and Facebook as a way to sell green energy to customers willing to pay the additional cost, once seemed like a breakthrough.

However, the authors argue, “the design and price structure ... imposed by Duke have been such a barrier that thus far no companies have agreed to purchase renewable energy under the program.”

Duke intends to increase its renewable energy output to 4 percent from 2 percent in the next few years.

And that brings us to this:

He accuses Greenpeace of cherry-picking its statistics. He says the report emphasizes that Duke has just 2 percent of renewable energy in its system now and plans to have just 4 percent by 2029. But Wheeless says the report ignores Duke’s sizable hydro power capacity and the power produced by zero-carbon nuclear plants.

The “he” there is Duke spokesman Randy Wheeless. Nuclear and hydro together make up about 37 percent of electricity production in the state (nuclear alone is 32 percent), about the same as coal.

Greenpeace is not so much cherry-picking as paying attention to what interests them – and that’s not nuclear energy. The extent to which Facebook, Google, Duke or North Carolina care about this is up to them. But as far as we’re concerned, Google and Facebook made intelligent choices in putting some of their data centers in North Carolina (and Virginia, too, for that matter ) – where a lot of the baseload energy is not only clean but plentiful enough to manage my searches or see what my crazy uncle is up to. If I were in North Carolina, I’d consider my clicks plenty clean as is.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

What Matters to Jeb Bush, Yucca Mountain and Media Matters

casaenergyIT’s way too early in the cycle to talk about the presidential candidates’ energy policy formulations – heck, we may not have the majority of them announced as candidates yet. Consider, then, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, one of those candidates who has not yet announced.

The Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush spoke out against the proposal to bury nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, without mentioning Bush's ties to a nuclear industry group that actively supports the project.

Really, a nuclear energy group? Which one?

What the AP and Review-Journal left out, however, is that Bush is currently listed as a member of a nuclear industry group called the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), which has long advocated for Yucca Mountain -- and continues to do so. As recently as February 24, CASEnergy published a blog post declaring Yucca Mountain a "scientifically safe and sound option" for storing nuclear waste permanently, and "a critical component" of the nation's shift to nuclear energy.

Well, CASEnergy didn’t declare that – the NRC did and CASEnergy is reporting it (approvingly, but still.) 

To be fair, Media Matters is right that CASEnergy supports Yucca Mountain:

The key elements of a U.S. used fuel management policy include flexible interim storage approaches, the licensing and construction of an underground repository at Yucca Mountain, and facilities for recycling used nuclear fuel to take advantage of the maximum energy from the fuel in a manner that includes effective safeguards against nuclear proliferation.

But here’s the thing: CASEnergy has no loyalty oath asking its members to support nuclear energy in all of – or even any of - the specific issues the group advocates. To be fair, Media Matters is not characterizing CASEnergy as having a politically ideological mission – but it is suggesting that it wants a certain purity from its members. Which it doesn’t – at all.

In this regard, a comment from CASEnergy Co-Chair Christine Todd Whitman at the Nuclear Energy Assembly struck me:

I would like a national energy policy that says we want clean, green, reliable, affordable energy and leave it at that. And let the marketplace figure out the best ways to meet those goals.

Now, obviously, Whitman advocates for nuclear energy – read her comments in the post below this one – but that doesn’t sound like a person with a purity test, does it?

So if Gov. Bush does not support Yucca Mountain, fine. He’s still a member of CASEnergy in good standing.

---

One further niggle with the Media Matters report:

Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston first detailed Bush's ties to the pro-Yucca industry group in March, in a blog post in which he wrote that Bush "was once part of a front group for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main lobbying entity behind siting a repository at Yucca Mountain."

Front group?  NEI created CASEnergy to provide a vehicle for individuals to advocate for nuclear energy – NEI itself is geared toward corporate membership. You could say Media Matters stumbled into a mire with this one. Gov. Bush says he doesn’t support Yucca Mountain and CASEnergy has no brief on anything Gov. Bush says or does regarding nuclear energy. But Media Matters thinks it ought to.

Why? What does that say about Media Matters?

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The QER, Nuclear Energy and Energy Infrastructure

Matt Wald
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI.

The Energy Department has posted the first installment of its Quadrennial Energy Review. Quite sensibly, the department cast a critical eye on the sorry state of energy infrastructure: overstressed gas lines that leak, sometimes catastrophically, and can’t meet the demand during cold spells; bottlenecks in the rail and canal systems that move coal and oil; and electric generating stations that starve for fuel when the coal pile freezes.

But the sections of the plan that have been published so far do not give any credit to generation technologies that do not add strain to the fuel shipment infrastructure. To the department’s credit, officials there say that they are working to “unbundle” the attributes of various electricity generation systems, and to assign appropriate values to each attribute, including transportation requirements.

Nuclear power plants, in addition to making clean, reliable electricity at a stable price, also reduce stress on the nation’s transportation infrastructure. That is because they operate on a highly concentrated fuel that is required in only small volumes, and is delivered over existing highways by ordinary trucks. They hold 12 to 24 months of fuel in the reactor core, available whether or not the wind is blowing, or the sun shining, whether or not fuel arrives just in time through a pipeline, and whether or not the coal pile is frozen.

Despite these attributes, the electric system is drifting away from use of that technology, into generating plants that suffer from fuel interruptions and that put heavy strains on public infrastructure outside the plant fence.

As the Energy Information Administration pointed out in February, the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant produced nearly 5 million megawatt-hours a year until its closure last December. EIA said that the likely substitutes were natural gas, coal or oil. Using EIA formulas, that would require 50.5 billion cubic feet of gas, or 26.25 million tons of coal or 57.5 million barrels of oil – or, more realistically, some combination of these, dominated by natural gas.

These are very large increments in a system that is already stressed.

According to the EIA, the six-state New England region has an import capacity of 3.9 billion cubic feet a day – assuming no bottlenecks within New England, and no constraints from New Brunswick, Quebec or New York, which is not the case. And during the last polar vortex, constraints on the gas infrastructure pushed prices in Boston above $70 per MMbtu, and electricity prices above $500 per MWh.

26.25 million tons of coal to replace Vermont Yankee every year.
Moving 26.25 million tons of coal into New England would require more than 200,000 car loads.

The Pilgrim nuclear power plant, of approximately the same design and vintage as Vermont Yankee but about 14 percent larger, is suffering through the same problems that doomed Vermont Yankee: a relatively small, single-unit plant with higher-than-average generating costs, competing in a market with electricity prices depressed by the generally low price of natural gas. Yet Pilgrim gets no credit for reducing the strain on the region’s overstressed gas pipeline network.

These problems are directly connected: one reason gas is cheap is because of under-investment in the pipeline network. The network is simply not set up for the level of reliability required by a strong electric system.

Five reactors in Illinois are not economic under the current market structure. They have a total capacity eight times larger than Vermont Yankee. Loss of any of those reactors would reduce the region’s ability to deal with weather-induced stress, or to export fossil fuel to the East.

Yet none of those plants gets any credit either for having years of fuel pre-staged on site.

The QER proposes spending up to $3.5 billion in Federal grants to help replace old pipelines, and up to $2.5 billion for energy transport systems. That doesn’t count private sector costs. Such government subsidies only serve to encourage more use of resources that tend to drive out nuclear plants, which are cleaner and do not require such help in bringing in fuel.

If heavy reliance on fossil energy requires more spending on fuel infrastructure, the rational approach would be to reflect the expense in the wholesale price of electricity from natural gas or coal. Failing that, if the government determines that such subsidies are, in fact, in the national interest, some countervailing step would be appropriate, to sustain electricity sources that relieve the stress on existing infrastructure. In competitive markets, this could take the form of reliability payments, putting a cash value on the money-saving attributes of nuclear power, which reduce the need to spend on new pipes and compressor stations, new rail capacity, new bridges, and new ports or waterway improvements.

UPDATE: The Committee has announced that Sec. Moniz's testimony has been postponed until June 2 at 10:00 a.m.

EDITOR'S NOTE: On Thursday morning, Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz is set to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee concerning the findings of the QER.


Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Business Rallies for Carolina Jobs & Ex-Im Bank

Ted Jones
The following is a guest post by Ted Jones, Director of International Supplier Relations for NEI.

For several months now, we've been shining a spotlight on the dispute in Washington over the reauthorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. But this week, the focus of this battle is moving outside the Beltway far away from Washington-based Tea Party groups to where real jobs are at stake - in this case on Wednesday morning in Charlotte where businesses from across the Carolinas are going to rally to support the bank and the work it does promoting exports in the region.

The event will take place at the Westin Charlotte Hotel beginning at 8:30 a.m. and will include businesses from all over the Carolinas. Already confirmed to be in attendance and participating are companies like Duke Energy, Holtec, CB&I, Fluor, Curtiss-Wright, GE Aviation and Boeing. We also expect a number of smaller nuclear energy suppliers - companies who would be forced to start laying off employees immediately without the help of the bank - to be in attendance to tell their stories.

The commercial nuclear energy industry is vitally important to the Carolinas. A study by Clemson University found that 29,000 jobs are generated by the nuclear industry in the two states. These jobs account for $4.2 billion in direct and indirect pay along with $1 billion in state and local taxes in the Carolinas. Without the Ex-Im Bank, a significant portion of that economic activity would be immediately jeopardized.

With North Carolina’s high commercial stake in global markets, a failure to renew Ex-Im Bank would be devastating to businesses and families in the state. For fiscal 2014, the bank approved transactions for hundreds of North Carolina exporters, supporting thousands of jobs. Contrary to the claims of Ex-Im Bank’s opponents, four out of every five transactions that Ex-Im Bank supports are for small or medium-sized exporters.

We'll be following the events in Charlotte on Wednesday morning via our Twitter feed. In the meantime, please take a look back in our archives at some of the previous articles we've written in support of Ex-Im Bank and the jobs that come with it.
Also, be sure to refer back to NEI.org and our landing page on Ex-Im Bank reauthorization.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

NEA: A Discussion on Climate Change

NEA-logo_blue_small2The Nuclear Energy Assembly wrapped up this morning with a panel on nuclear energy and its worth as a low carbon dioxide emitting energy source.

Low in this case means zero. That’s been true from the opening of Shippingport in the 50s and remains true. But it has taken on new significance in recent years.

The panel was called A Discussion on Climate Change. Panelists included  Philip Sharp, President of Resources for the Future, Christine Todd Whitman, Co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and President of the Whitman Strategy Group, Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force and Dan Reicher, Executive Director of Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University.

This is an excellent group, ranging over the topic from their varied perspectives. We’ll provide a few highlights from each speaker, but the exchanges between them are very enlightening as well. You can view the 40 minute session here – if you need something to convince your friends, especially your greenest friends, that there’s a strong argument for nuclear energy, this is it.

These are my transcriptions. I’ve cleaned them up a little bit, but these folks are all polished speakers, so not much.

Sharp (who acted as moderator):

Sometimes you hear people say, well, after Fukushima, it’s all over, Americans don’t support nuclear power. I believe this is absolutely wrong. I believe there is no evidence that Fukushima reactivated the anti-nuclear movement in this country. …

All of these [climate change policy] studies come to the conclusion that we’re going to need over decades a portfolio of policies and we’re going to need a wide portfolio of low carbon fuels if we’re going to have a large impacts this. All of them include nuclear as a fuel that needs to be part of this…

Whitman, who was also the first Environmental Protection Agency administrator during the George W. Bush Administration:

I would like a national energy policy that says we want clean, green, reliable, affordable energy and leave it at that. And let the marketplace figure out the best ways to meet those goals.

We find more and more that people are saying yes, nuclear is too important. It punches way above its weight in what it provides in clean air, in what it provides with reliability and so they become more comfortable with the idea of expanding nuclear, living with nuclear …

Reicher:

In terms of technology, we need to put the pedal to the metal on every zero-carbon energy we have – and fast – if we’re going to address the climate crisis in the time frame most scientists have said.

I’m a major advocate of renewables and have been involved in their development and deployment in the business world and I am confident they will provide an increasing  and significant share of the world’s power supply over the next few decades, but I don’t think quickly enough to address the climate crisis.

Another zero-carbon technology, carbon capture and sequestration, is getting more real by the day. … The good news is that a diverse array of U.S. companies are moving forward with large scale CCS projects and industrial facilities…

So what about nuclear power? … In the case of existing U.S. reactors, climate math demands we carefully consider the fate of our 100 current reactors. … In the case of new U.S. reactors under construction, much rides on bringing them on line at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame.

[Reicher does not think a carbon tax or cap-and-trade have much of a chance in Congress, but he does think that EPA’s pending rule on electricity generator emissions will survive court challenges and be implemented productively.]

Cohen:

The math of climate is absolutely brutal and I think this is what led folks like myself and other folks in the environmental movement increasingly to be having a conversation about nuclear’s role in a climate solution…

You’ve got to go to zero [carbon emissions] basically over 25 years while you’re increasing demand by two to three times. That’s a big circle to square. … We need to move faster and I would argue we need to move radically faster.

One thing we’ve seen from nuclear is that under the right conditions it can decarbonize power grids very rapidly because it comes in big chunks. France decarbonized its grid in 20 years, or at least decarbonized it by 75 percent, which is the number we’re looking for globally [to contain climate change.]

This just scratches the surface of their comments. There’s much more – a lot more to think about – and well worth your time.