Instead of a national energy policy from our government we are getting short-term thinking and partisan politics. Neither of which is a substitute for a long-range energy policy that is comprehensive, good for the environment and does not negatively impact the economy.
President Obama’s pick to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy, is interesting. She is a veteran regulator who, if nominated, will oversee the agency as it prepares controversial climate change rulemakings. McCarthy, a 58-year-old Boston native who has served as EPA’s top air regulator since early 2009, almost certainly will face a bumpy Senate confirmation battle from Republican lawmakers critical of Obama’s renewed focus on addressing climate change and her own role in EPA climate policy.
As EPA administrator, McCarthy would have final agency say on a separate rulemak¬ing, also required under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse emissions from existing power plants, a far trickier undertaking laden with political and technical landmines. This is not an energy policy; this just sets the stage for a political battle.
Similarly there is significant discontent with Secretary’s Chu decision to award just one cost-sharing contract to B&W’s small modular reactor, when the plan was to pick the two best technologies and fund them both. Apparently the Westinghouse SMR was the second pick by DOE staff until Secretary Chu decided the agency should be funding at least one non-conventional technology.
Natural gas has become the fuel of choice in recent years to generate electricity, not because that is a good long-term use of this valuable natural resource, but because of price and supply.
Affordable electricity is too important to our economy to not have a long-term national energy policy. But until there is a crisis – eight dollar gasoline, shortages of electricity or a climate catastrophe – I doubt we ever will muster the political will to get the job done.
Energy Policy
Loan Guarantees vs. Subsidies
I recently returned from a great trip to talk to students at Tulane and LSU. I think there is one thing that still needs to be cleared up. That is the difference between Loan Guarantees and Subsidies. A Loan Guarantee is NOT free money given to a company. A loan guarantee is government backing for a loan that allows companies to access capital at a lower cost.
Let’s compare this with a real life experience I had. Right before my senior year in college my car died. I knew in another year I’d be making good money, but I didn’t have the down-payment or credit required to buy a new car. My father was kind enough to step in and co-sign on my loan. My father didn’t give me any money. He knew of my potential to make money in the future and that I was reliable to make payments in the meantime, so he put his name on the loan along with mine.
In this situation I’m the nuclear industry. Building a new plant is a huge upfront cost that even the largest nuclear companies can’t pay for outright. By getting the government, or in my experience, my father, to co-sign on the load they get a reduced rate which translates to project cost savings and lower rates for the end consumer. Fortunately for me, my father didn’t require me to give him money in return for his signature; however, the government actually receives a fee from companies who participate in the loan guarantee program.
With loan guarantees, everyone wins. The company gets lower loan rates, the consumer gets lower utility rates, and the government gets their associated fee (which we all hope ends up benefiting the tax payers). American workers have more jobs, 1400-1800 jobs during construction and 400-700 permanent jobs. American manufacturers will also benefit because of more demand for concrete and steel as well as thousands of other components required to create electricity. The environment also wins with a large source of base-load clean energy.
One thing to note is that the federal government has 70 loan guarantee programs to ensure investment of critical infrastructure for this company totaling $1.2 trillion. The $78.5 billion allocated to nuclear (2005 and 2009) is a small piece of this pie (6.5%).
For more information see:
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/nei-backgrounders/myths–facts-about-nuclear-energy/myths–facts-about-economics-and-financing
Radiation Hormesis – version 1.0
I’ve blogged about hormesis before, but I came across another article thanks to 119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers.
This article highlights some radiation professionals comments regarding the ‘benefits’ of low levels of radiation (aka Hormesis): Radiation Protection Profession Hiding Health Benefits of Low Level Radiation
I’d love to hear if your thoughts! If your thoughts about hormesis have changed, please share what caused this change.
Timpla
Less Talk, More Action is Needed to Solve Nuclear Waste Disposal Issue
The past year has brought several events that have changed the course of the nuclear industry in the United States; events like Fukushima have been very traumatic. While others, like the announcing of new reactors being built in South Carolina and Georgia have shown that the nuclear industry is still moving onward and upward.
Another event, although much less heralded in the media, is receiving plenty of attention inside the nuclear industry. The findings reported by President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future stand to bring about the question of spent fuel storage once again. In fact, the Commission stated rather bluntly that, “…the Obama Administration’s decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the latest indicator of a nuclear waste management policy that has been troubled for decades and has now reached an impasse. Allowing that impasse to continue is not an option.” There’s good reason for this, the long term viability of the nuclear industry depends upon a solution to this critical issue. If we are unable to close out the fuel cycle, then after a while the industry would simply cease to exist. There is also a more immediate financial benefit to solving our waste issue. It’s reported that we could save $350 million on security costs if we were able to consolidate our spent fuel.
The Blue Ribbon Commission, listed key elements of their findings, the first of which stated the need for a consent based approach when siting future waste repositories. This, of course, appears to be one of the trickiest pieces of the puzzle. After all, what community is going to want to store (permanently or on an interim basis) nuclear waste in their own backyard? While communities throughout the country aren’t exactly lining up to take advantage of a waste management facility, it’s not as if we are left without options. There are two that come to mind, the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina as well as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. A consortium of business, government and community leaders near the Savannah River Site have recently announced the commissioning of a $200,000 study which will explore the feasibility of a temporary, consolidated waste storage facility. The study is expected to be completed in 2013. On the other hand, WIPP not only appears to be well suited as a waste management facility, but the possibility exists that it could become a long term geologic repository. Certainly, there is a long way to go on studying the viability of a geologic repository in New Mexico; but either way, according to former New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, with the right incentives, “there is a great deal of support” for a spent fuel storage facility at WIPP. In January, Forbes ran a great profile piece on the possibility of WIPP housing our nation’s nuclear waste; you can find it linked below, it’s highly recommended.
The reason for this post is simple. Recently we’ve been talking a lot about the energy policies of President Obama and Gov. Romney, you can hardly go a news cycle without hearing about Keystone XL or fracking; but with the nuclear industry at such a critical juncture the fact that we aren’t talking about this is troubling. There’s money on the table to be saved, and a vital energy source that our country depends on for 20% of its electricity to be preserved. Let’s get talking.
Further reading:
U.S. Nuclear Industry Remains Steadfast in its Commitment to Safety
As the one year anniversary of the earthquake and Tsunami in Japan, and the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant is approaching, the Japanese government is set to release a full report this summer detailing the crisis at Fukushima. An interim report was released last month and a recent article in The Economist about that report is both gripping and rather revealing by Japanese standards. Additionally, it shows a Japanese government that is almost derelict in their duties to properly protect and maintain their fleet of nuclear reactors and most importantly to protect the public. The article outlines several of the well known mishaps on the part of Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) and the Japanese regulatory agency in charge of policing the nuclear industry. These issues are now well documented and most in the nuclear energy industry view them as serious oversights.
It’s particularly worrisome to think that concerned Americans may look at Japan and wonder if our respective nuclear industries operate in the same way. Part of the mission of Clean Energy America is to educate the public and reassure them that the United States nuclear energy industry has been and will always be committed to keeping the public safe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) holds the industry accountable and many could argue that they set the global standard for the proper regulation of nuclear energy. In addition to the NRC, nuclear facilities have to comply with state regulators as well as self-imposed regulations required by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Of course, this blog is not the venue to outline all of the regulations imposed upon the industry, but the following I find to be rather reassuring.
1) Each nuclear facility is required by law to have an emergency preparedness plan and to conduct a full-scale emergency exercise every two years.
2) Emergency preparedness plans continually evolve. The learning culture within nuclear energy industry is such that the sharing of information, lessons learned and best practices is not only encouraged, but required. The “stovepipe” thinking that proved disastrous in Japan is virtually nonexistent in the United States.
3) Emergency plans ALWAYS provide layers upon layers of safety features and are required to take into account a wide array of possibilities, such as natural disasters and terrorist threats.
For more information please visit the Nuclear Energy Institute at NEI.org.
VOTE! 2011 NA-YGN Drawing Contest!
Okay, so not only SIMON likes to do ‘drawrings!’
Other 4th and 5th graders do to!
Link to this site to see what the drawing contest is all about and vote for your favorite drawing:
http://www.cleanenergyinsight.org/energy-insights/vote-2011-na-ygn-drawing-contest/
Thanks for your support.
Timpla
Celebrating Nuclear Energy
One of my friends from college, who coincidentally also entered the nuclear industry, posted on Facebook Tuesday night: “Earthquake in Virginia 10-20 miles away from nuclear plant, 2 units in SAFE shutdown. Go Nuclear Power!”
On the other hand, someone in the media was talking about a potential “doomsday earthquake-nuclear disaster.”
Both of these comments bother me.
The nuclear industry has a unique responsibility to the public to maintain safety at all times. This is not a victory for the industry. This is our day-to-day job. We will look at what happened in Virginia on Tuesday and make sure that we learn from it to improve our response to the next event.
At the same time, we don’t have to wave our hands in the air and panic. Nuclear energy facilities are some of the most robust designs ever implemented- and we are always improving them. This is an industry that is accountable for safe operation with one of the strongest oversight bodies in the world.
The facility remained safe at all times. It has 5 large, redundant backup diesels on site, of which you really use 4 at a time. One of the initial 4 was removed from service due to a leak and the 5th was subsequently placed into service to replace it. Offsite (grid) power has since been restored, and the plants are cooling down so that further inspections can be performed. This is a standard procedure based on size of earth motion at the site relative to the design. They are monitoring small aftershocks, but they have not been challenged by them.
We, as an industry, have been looking now to further improve our safety margin by implementing diverse safety systems that don’t rely on the traditional large diesels. The lessons we learned from September 11th and Fukushima are important and are continuously being integrated into our plant design and procedures. These improvements aren’t a victory or something to brag about how great we are. They are our job.
Seismic event in Virginia
(post 8/23 3:41pm- please note information is preliminary)
North Anna Nuclear Power Plant (located very near the epicenter of today’s earthquake) declared an Unusual Event following today’s earthquake. It has been reported that both units (2 unit site) shut off their reactors and disconnected from the grid. While I don’t know the specific cause of their shutdowns, the emergency level (Unusual Event or UE) is a sign that things are a-ok in Central Virginia.
The systems for generating electricity for the grid are not designed to handle earthquake loads. So a shutdown is not a reliable sign of safety problems.
North Anna did lose offsite power, which is also not considered a seismically reliable (“earthquake proof”) component. It makes the response more annoying, but it is not a big safety issue. Land (phone) lines to plant are down, but there are satellite phones on site for safety related backup communications (assuming cells, etc are not working).
All nuclear power plants in the United States are designed for the largest estimated earthquake in the area plus additional margin. While seismic scientists have gotten their share of criticism this year, structural engineers are pretty good at overcompensating by over-designing everything.
Update @ 7:25 pm
North Anna actually declared an ‘Alert’, the second lowest emergency level- my initial report was from unconfirmed media accounts. This declaration is based upon the loss of power from the grid. All the emergency diesels are reported to be operating normally. Several other plants declared procedurally driven ‘Unusual Events,’ but no other plants shut down.
The safety systems at nuclear facilities in the US got tested pretty hard by Mother Nature this year. From tornadoes to floods to earthquakes, we saw impressively safe performance. We aren’t resting on our past success. We make sure we are learning from every event to improve our performance- and to provide you safe and reliable power.
When it comes to safety, the nuclear industry is second to none.
I’ve always had a gut feeling that the majority of the public views the nuclear industry much the same way they view producers of other forms of energy. After all, if you watch The Simpsons you’ll find a critical showing of a nuclear power plant that throws caution to the wind in favor of ever increasing profits and while I hope people don’t base their conclusions off a cartoon sometimes I wonder if people actually DO believe this to be true of the nuclear energy industry. Of course with the recent media coverage on Japan’s nuclear industry, can you blame them? Just today The New York Times published an article that shed new light on the regulatory structure in Japan that was awfully unflattering and embarrassing.
In the past year alone, it seems as if all the industries that provide baseload electricity have received a bad rap (and some rightfully so) because of their inattention to safety and public health. Immediately after Fukushima the nuclear industry has been forced to answer some pretty pointed questions from the public with respect to safety, plant designs and the general culture of our industry and respective companies. However, the fact is that the nuclear industry routinely answers the tough questions. The nuclear energy industry in the United States is unique in that plant workers all around the country have to account for their actions to federal regulators every single day. Furthermore, they are required to share information and best practices with colleagues in competing companies. The greatest thing is that many of the nuclear professionals I talk to are more than happy to share information as they believe the industry is only as strong as its weakest link.
I have only been involved with the nuclear industry for about seven months now, so the idea of sharing information seems counter intuitive to me. However, when you start talking to these professionals you see that many of them are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and to them the safety of their family and communities comes before everything.
Radiation Hormesis: Fact or Fiction?
A colleague of mine and I had an interesting discussion recently. The conversation regarded radiation and it was instigated when I brought up the radiation levels around the Fukushima nuclear plants, or what I felt was lack of information. The conversation moved into a discussion about hormesis.
For those of you that are naive to this concept as I was, radiation hormesis is the theory that exposure to low levels of radiation (in addition to background radiation) can actually have a positive effect. It has been the general belief that low doses of ionizing radiation produce detrimental effects proportional to the effects produced by high-level radiation. However, according to my colleague, over the past few decades, some pioneer scientists report that low-dose ionizing radiation is not only a harmless agent but often has a beneficial or hormetic effect.
Intrigued by the discussion, I have started my own investigation. I will add additional posts as I find some reliable studies.
I’d like to hear what others think about this theory.
Radiation Hormesis: Fact or Fiction?
Share & Bookmark!
Recent Entries
- Energy Policy
- Loan Guarantees vs. Subsidies
- Radiation Hormesis – version 1.0
- Less Talk, More Action is Needed to Solve Nuclear Waste Disposal Issue
- U.S. Nuclear Industry Remains Steadfast in its Commitment to Safety
- VOTE! 2011 NA-YGN Drawing Contest!
- Celebrating Nuclear Energy
- Seismic event in Virginia
- When it comes to safety, the nuclear industry is second to none.
- Radiation Hormesis: Fact or Fiction?
Recent Comments
- Rick Morris in Loan Guarantees vs. Subsidies
- Twominds in Loan Guarantees vs. Subsidies
- Engineer-Poet in Radiation Hormesis - version 1.0
- Joffan in Radiation Hormesis - version 1.0
- discount diablo… in Less Talk, More Action is Needed to…
- James Greenidge… in Less Talk, More Action is Needed to…
- Refugio Oharrol… in Election Day
- Sherry Molina in Opposing Clean Coal, for right now.…
- CTP Certificati… in Election Day
- praos in Radiation Hormesis: Fact or Fictio…
Pages
Categories
- Blue Ribbon Commission
- clean air/environmental impact
- General
- Nuclear Energy Safety
- Nuclear News
- Nuclear Waste Storage
Archives
- February 2013
- October 2012
- August 2012
- January 2012
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
Blogroll
- NEI Blog - Nuclear Energy Institue Blog