Thursday, October 23, 2014

Why DOE Shouldn’t Split Issue of Radioactive Waste Management

Dr. Everett Redmond
The following is a guest post by Dr. Everett Redmond, NEI's Senior Director, Policy Development.

Yesterday the Department of Energy released its “Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.” This report is in response to a recommendation made by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC). The BRC had recommended that the Administration conduct a review of the current policy to dispose of defense and commercial high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in a single repository or repositories.

The DOE report states: “Specifically, this report recommends that the DOE begin implementation of a phased, adaptive, and consent-based strategy with development of a separate mined repository for some DOE-managed HLW and cooler DOE-managed SNF, potentially including some portion of the inventory of naval SNF. This report notes that, in addition to early development of a separate repository for cooler DOE-managed HLW and SNF, effective implementation of a strategy for management and disposal of all HLW and SNF would also include a focused research, development, and demonstration program addressing technologies relevant to deep borehole disposal of smaller DOE-managed waste forms and the disposal of large DOE-managed waste packages with high thermal loads in mined repositories.”

Yucca Mountain
NEI and the industry are committed to the development of a viable program for the long-term management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste from our nation’s defense program and commercial used nuclear fuel. The DOE must begin to meet its obligations to the commercial industry and the communities and states where DOE facilities are located. It is the industry position that the disposal pathways and the obligations for managing both DOE high-level waste and commercial used nuclear fuel should be addressed simultaneously, not sequentially as the recommendations in the report seem to suggest. On behalf of nuclear energy producers and suppliers we urge Congress to fund, and the Administration to continue, the review of the Yucca Mountain repository license application. It is in the best interest of this nation that the Federal Government begins to meet its legal obligations as soon as possible and to establish a viable program for the long-term management and disposal of commercial used nuclear fuel and DOE high-level radioactive waste.

Please follow Dr Redmond on his Twitter feed, @EverettRedmond.

NEI's Marv Fertel on Nuclear Science Week

With Nuclear Science Week in full swing, NEI's Marv Fertel passed along some thoughts:

NEI is proud to support Nuclear Science Week. Thanks to nuclear science, the world has enjoyed the benefits of clean air energy, explored the far reaches of space and expanded the boundaries of medicine. As teachers introduce a new generation of students to nuclear technologies this week, one wonders what incredible new innovations we will enjoy in the future thanks to their efforts.
For more on Nuclear Science Week, please follow our friends via their Twitter feed, @NuclearSciWeek, as well as NEI's Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The National in National Nuclear Science Week

nsw Nuclear Science Week (NSW – but very safe for work) is a national, broadly observed week-long celebration to focus local, regional and national interest on all aspects of nuclear science. Seattle is hosting NSW this year, bit let’s focus on the national aspect. In fact, plans in other locales are – well, pretty darn awesome.

I’ll zero in on South Carolina:

The Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA) will hold their 23rd Annual Edward Teller Lecture and Banquet on Monday, October 20, 2014.  The lecture is a community event attended by community leaders, CNTA members, local and national business and corporate interests, government and Savannah River Site officials, and elected officials from Georgia and South Carolina.

Guest Lecturer – Robert Stone (Director – Pandora’s Promise and Oscar-Nominated & Emmy-Nominated Documentary Filmmaker)

This is especially impressive. One would imagine that, two years after making Pandora’s Promise, Stone would have moved on to his next project. I’m sure he has – IMDB doesn’t list one, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one – yet Stone is still clearly engaged with nuclear energy.

The Savannah River Site is also sponsoring a speech contest:

The SRS Leadership Association sponsors an annual speech contest open to any student from the CSRA, in grades 9th – 12th. It requires a student to personally prepare a speech of between four and six minute duration relating to leadership.

I used to participate in these in high school – I won a small scholarship for a civics speech - so it’s nice to see it’s still a thing. This is all the information given on the page, so I don’t know if there’s a prize offered.

Also touted: tours of the Savannah River site and the V.C. Summer construction site. A pretty impressive showing altogether. SCANA and Georgia Power are among the major sponsors.

South Carolina clearly benefits by having a number of nuclear properties clustered together – makes organizing something like this easier – and Savannah River and Summer have really pulled out the stops. If you have a nuclear-interested kid and live in that area, it’s going to be an atomic Disneyland.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Valuing Nuclear Assets in A National Energy Review

nuclear-power-plant President Obama in January directed the heads of nearly two dozen federal agencies to create an integrated review of U.S. energy policy “in the context of economic, environmental, occupational, security, and health and safety priorities.”

The task force is charged with developing “integrated guidance to strengthen U.S. energy policy,” building on the administration’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future and Climate Action Plan. The first of the quadrennial energy reviews is due this coming January. It will be updated every four years thereafter, if future administrations continue with it.

Quadrennial might sound like a old European dance (that’s a quadrille), but it’s a kind of roadmap timed to occur near the mid-point of an administration’s term. Even if the review is based on administration priorities that the next president does not follow, it will encourage continuity and transparency in energy policy.

Public comments were due October 10. NEI submitted a few, focusing on several points, including the review’s focus.

[T]his first-ever review will focus on energy infrastructure and will identify the threats, risks, and opportunities for U.S. energy and climate security, enabling the federal government to translate policy goals into a set of integrated actions.

And NEI’s response:

Although DOE has indicated that the first edition of the QER focuses on infrastructure, NEI does not believe it is possible or prudent to separate delivery from supply and production, particularly in the electric sector. It is not possible to examine transmission of electricity or natural gas in isolation without also examining, for example, the number and locations of the power plants that might need natural gas.

Of course, NEI is most interested in the role of nuclear energy in the electricity market, but not considering energy generators impacts them all, denying them the value they bring to the marketplace. An energy review that ignores this risks being of limited use.

Sound competitive market design should follow basic economic principles and begin with a systematic inventory of the attributes of the various forms of electric generating capacity that have value to the grid. Then the competitive markets should develop mechanisms to provide compensation for those attributes. Unless and until these attributes are recognized and priced, markets run the risk that they will gradually disappear.

Some of those attributes are obvious for nuclear energy: carbon-emission free, non-stop baseload energy that can be very inexpensive to run. NEI’s response expands on several of these qualities, notably how nuclear energy fulfills the energy review’s specific concerns:

Affordable, clean, and secure energy and energy services are essential for improving U.S. economic productivity, enhancing our quality of life, protecting our environment, and ensuring our Nation's security.

With a tweak here and there, this could be the mission statement of the nuclear energy industry. We’ll see how the final report goes when it emerges in January.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Into the Fusion Breach with Lockheed Martin

lockheed-fusion It’s a short story in Scientific American that might make you say, Uh-oh, here we go:

Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade.

Now, Lockheed Martin is certainly a legitimate outfit – my father worked there for years - and likely wouldn’t make a statement of this sort unless it were serious. Still, there are some red flags:

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.

Words such as secretive don’t inspire confidence, especially for what would be a gigantic breakthrough. Four years also seems odd, given the much longer amounts of time that other fusion projects, such as ITER and the the National Ignition Facility, have been at it.

I looked around at other accounts to have my own suspicious nature (when it comes to fusion) quashed.

Wired:

The problem with that reactor? It doesn’t exist yet. “Some key parts of the prototype are theoretical and not yet proven,” says Nathan Gilliland, CEO of Canadian fusion company General Fusion.

Business Insider:

But most scientists and science communicators we talked to are skeptical of the claim.

Other accounts are more objective, though several note the issues with fusion – scalability, power consumption, etc. Climate Progress ties fusion into its own interests in an interesting way:

At this point, keeping the world under 2°C of global warming will require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak in 2020 and fall rapidly after that. Developed countries may very well need to peak by 2015 and then start dropping by 10 percent a year. So by Lockheed Martin’s own timeline, their first operational CFR won’t come online until after the peak deadline. To play any meaningful role in decarbonization — either here in America or abroad — they’d have to go from one operational CFR to mass production on a gargantuan scale, effectively overnight. More traditional forms of nuclear power face versions of the same problem.

This argument, which is head slappingly obtuse, comes with an agenda:

Demonstration projects, particularly in Europe, are already showing how proper coordination on the grid can stitch a renewable portfolio together in ways that smooth out the inherent intermittency of when solar and wind arrays actually produce power.

There you go. When you prefer one nascent solution over another, problems with your favored project evaporate in the, uh, wind while the other is just useless. I’d say: keep pursuing both.

The bottom line: fusion projects are, so far anyway, always five to 10 years from fruition. It’s almost an article of faith in the fusion community. Does that mean all such effort should stop? No, of course not: the potential benefits are enormous. But we reserve the right to take a believe-it-when-see-it stance. So all good fortune to Lockheed Martin – and the National Ignition Facility – and ITER – and General Fusion. Who makes this work will create the disruptive technology of the early-or mid-or late 21st century. Then it’s on to the flux capacitor and dilithium crystals.

Lockheed Martin has a page up about its fusion activities, though its press release on its breakthrough has disappeared. Make of that what you will.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

In Virginia, No Debate on Nuclear Energy

The physical presentation of the Virginia Senatorial debate this past weekend wasn’t all that polished – it didn’t really need to be - but Sen. Mark Warner (D) and his Republican challenger Ed Gillespie certainly were on their respective games. Both stayed on-point and came prepared with well-tuned arguments. And they represent starkly different worldviews, which makes voting for one or the other easier for voters.

However, if you’re a one-issue voter and that issue is nuclear energy, you’ve got a problem.

Here is Ed Gillespie from his campaign Web site:

Virginia is blessed with abundant energy resources, from coal and natural gas in the Southwest to offshore wind and deep sea oil and gas off our coast. We are home to a large number of employers in the nuclear industry and nearly 40 percent of the energy Virginians consume comes from the state’s safe, emission-free nuclear facilities. Energy companies and energy production create good, high-paying jobs across the professional spectrum, from engineering to computer programming. Electricity—and all that it allows—are critical to our nation’s prosperity.

and:

We need to encourage energy efficiency and the use of solar where it makes sense. We also need to do more to encourage the continued development of nuclear energy as a low-cost and low-emission energy source for the future.

Mark Warner, from his site:

Sen. Warner understands that it will take a combination of cleaner fossil fuels, solar, wind, bio-fuels, nuclear energy and next generation battery technologies to meet our future energy needs.

Warner also stressed his all-of-the-above support during the debate:

I think one of the great success stories of the last decade has been the explosive growth of America energy. … I support all-of-the-above energy sources, including coal, including natural gas, including renewables, including nuclear.

Start at about 29:00 for the energy portion.

There actually isn’t a lot of space between Warner and Gillespie on energy issues. We have no donkey or elephant in this race – that’s for the people of Virginia to decide – but it’s heartening to see nuclear energy so non-controversial that two candidates who differ on so much agree so heartily on this.

Virginia has four reactors, two each at Surrey and North Anna. Nuclear energy supplies about 38 percent of Virginia’s electricity, more than any other source. (Coal is second, with 27.7 percent.)

Coal mining is quite important in the southwest portion of the state. I won’t go into the coal portion of the debate – not my brief - but will note that both candidates mentioned visiting that part of the state and expressed concern about EPA’s draft climate change bill as holding the potential to harm the coal industry.

But that’s coal. If you needed proof that nuclear energy long ago ceased to be much of a partisan issue, here it is.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Cascading Ironies and the Nuclear Green Option

trojans Kids today! From the Daily Trojan, the paper of the University of Southern California:

Nuclear power production has rapidly grown since the 1930s …

Indeed it has. They don’t reference President Roosevelt’s famous “We have nothing to fear but a nuclear-free future” speech, but otherwise, all systems go.

Joshing aside, the editorial is very favorable to nuclear energy:

Nevertheless, it’s time for opponents to realize that compared to other energy sources, including wind, solar and coal, nuclear energy is the best possible option.

They make what we could call “the green argument - ” not just for nuclear energy as a source carbon emission-free energy, but against renewable energy because it gobbles up land. I thought when reading this that it relates to a Los Angeleno sensitivity to overcrowding, but judge for yourself.

Proponents of other energy sources such as wind and solar argue that these energy sources also emit less carbon than coal. Wind farms and solar photovoltaic parks, however, occupy much more space than nuclear power plants. They can require anywhere between 50,000 and 180,000 acres, compared to an average of approximately 400 acres for a nuclear power plant.

In addition to using more space, solar and wind sources actually produce less energy than nuclear for each dollar spent on energy production. If one of these options became the United States’ primary energy source, we would be sacrificing vast amounts of space for a relatively small amount of energy.

One of these will not become a primary source of electricity anytime soon due to intermittency. Let’s add too that 180,000 acres put aside today will be better used as wind and solar technologies improve. Nuclear energy facilities, after all, have experienced higher output over the years through equipment upgrades and efficiency gains. Nothing is frozen in place.

But from a land conservationist’s point of view, there’s merit to the argument. The editorial also discusses perceived issues with nuclear energy, which you can read yourself. And the green argument against renewable energy? Not entirely fair, but we appreciate the cascading irony of it.

Thursday, October 09, 2014

U.S. Nuclear Technology: The Right Choice

The global nuclear energy sector will descend upon Paris next week for the World Nuclear Exhibition, at the home of the famed Paris Air Show in Le Bourget. Under the leadership of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, NEI and other American companies (including AREVA, CB&I, Westinghouse, NuScale Power and GE Hitachi) will represent U.S. nuclear products and technology to an energy hungry world where nuclear energy will need to play a vital role.

In a forum such as this, it is particularly important that the U.S. turn up with our "A" game, if for no other reason than to reinforce the fact that U.S. nuclear technology is still the world leader. American ingenuity led the way in establishing the world’s largest and safest nuclear energy program. As we complete construction of five new reactors this decade and gear up for deployment of SMRs in the next, it is important to communicate to global suppliers that we are still going strong. That is exactly what NEI's Dan Lipman and Georgia Public Service Commission's Tim Echols will be doing when they speak during a special afternoon session on new generation U.S. technology on Wednesday, Oct. 15. Other industry experts we can expect to hear from are Bill Von Hoene (Exelon Corp.) and Bill Magwood (outgoing NRC commissioner and incoming Head of OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency).

The U.S. Department of Commerce values the global nuclear market at over $740 billion over the next decade and U.S. suppliers are determined to capture a significant portion of that business. Reinforcing our connection with today’s key civil nuclear market players, old and new, will be the path forward to seeing a 21st century nuclear renaissance at home and globally.

Beyond communicating the merits of American-made technology and best practices in regulation, NEI will be there to promote worldwide membership and best-in-class service to our members. Make sure to check in with us on Facebook and Twitter next week as we post live from the American Pavilion - C32, to the left of the hall entrance!