Deadly Explosion at Kleen Energy Plant in Middletown CT - At Least Five Fatalities From Natural Gas Blast Felt As Far as 15 Miles Away

 At least five people were killed on Sunday, February 7, 2010 at a natural gas fired power plant nearing construction completion. You can read more details including the names of the men who were killed at Middletown Explosion's Victims Were Fathers, Grandfather.

Additional Reading

Wall Street Journal - The 411 on the Kleen Power Plant and its PE Investor

Depleted Cranium - a first hand account from 15 miles away - Gas Fired Power Plant Exploded (so that’s what that was!)

Energy from Thorium - Fatalities at CT Natural Gas Power Plant Explosion

vtdigger.org (Led by journalists, powered by the public) - It can’t happen here? Deadly power plant explosion on the Connecticut

From "About vtdigger.org"

Vtdigger.org is a nonprofit, statewide news Web site dedicated to coverage of government, business and community life issues.

Our mission is to enhance democracy through in-depth, interactive journalism.

Our objective is to mine the gaps in Vermont news coverage. We seek to support existing media outlets.

New York Times (February 7, 2010) - 5 Dead, Dozens Hurt in Connecticut Power Plant Blast

New York Times (February 8, 2010) - Annotated graphic of plant after accident

New York Times (February 8, 2010) - Investigators to Sift Power Plant Rubble for Evidence of Criminal Negligence

Permanent post link >>

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way - Jaczko Needs to Understand What "Promote the Common Defense and Security" Means With Regard to Energy

I just had a BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) moment. I have figured out why Chairman Jaczko seems to be working at cross purposes to the Secretary of Energy and the President by insisting that his job as an independent regulator of nuclear energy does not include efforts to encourage its growing use. The fundamental problem is that he does not understand energy technology enough to recognize the enormous environmental and economic advantages that nuclear fission technology has over fossil fuel combustion, the world's dominant form of commercial energy - so far.

As Jaczko himself said in a recent speech, the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is "to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment." For those of us with real world experience in operating fossil fuel plants, planning military operations to protect fossil fuel energy supply chains, and operating nuclear energy facilities, it is impossible to fail to recognize the huge contribution that an increased used of nuclear energy would have in making the environment cleaner and the world safer by being less prone to resource scarcity-based conflicts.

An regulatory agency that is charged with protecting public health and safety, promoting common defense and security and protecting the environment, but does not do all it can to enable a safe, but rapid EXPANSION of nuclear energy production is failing in its mission accomplishment. Erecting barriers to knowledge dissemination, slowing license reviews by failing to request adequate financial resources, and blaming licensees for failing to answer repetitious and voluminous questions in a prompt manner means that the agency is failing to protect the environment by slowing the deployment of nuclear energy production systems.

The longer it takes to build nuclear plants, the more they cost. The more nuclear plants cost, the fewer of them get built. The longer they take to license and build once the process begins, the longer coal-fired power plants need to remain in service, often using duct tape and bailing wire because the owners plan to shut them down once the nuclear plant is operating.

Bottom line - it is the JOB of the Chairman of the NRC to ensure safe, adequate regulation that ENABLES the expansion of a technology that has a proven capability of protecting public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security and protecting the environment. If he cannot figure out that nuclear technology does all of those things, he is too ignorant to continue to serve in his current position.

Permanent post link >>

Weird Weather - Multiple Double Digit Snowstorms in Annapolis, Trucking in Snow for Winter Olympics in Vancouver

It has been one really strange winter here in Annapolis, Maryland. We have already had two snowstorms that each dumped something close to 20" of snow. My wife and I just finished digging out from the most recent one yesterday afternoon, but we are now under a winter weather watch with a prediction for another double digit snowfall starting this afternoon. Right after coming in from a couple of hours doing the county a favor by shoveling off our unplowed street - with the help of our neighbors - we turned on the TV to get an update on the Winter Olympics. You can just imagine how humorous we found it to hear the announcer talking about the massive effort to truck in snow.

I think she even mentioned that there was some snow being flown in, but by that time I was laughing too hard to pay close attention. My lovely wife, who has not yet forgiven me for moving her to Annapolis FROM Florida started looking for a contact number she could call to volunteer to send some of our snow out for the ski events.

Of course, when the weather is cold and snowy outside, it is hard to imagine how the scientists can be correct with their predictions about global warming - which is also called climate change. Conversations about the topic often stray from the kinds of rational, science-based discussions that I enjoy to conversations that use words best used in church, like "I believe..."

However, I just came across a great link that helps to explain what is happening to the highly populated regions of the world in the temperate zones in North America and Europe. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Watch Magazine on an article titled Arctic Air Ushers in Chilly December contains a terrific graphic image that really does show why a picture is worth 1000 words. The image shows regions of higher than normal temperature versus those with lower than normal temperature. I highly recommend that you go and read about Arctic Oscillations.

In the meantime, I need to go shovel some deep snow off of my deck before the next storm hits. I do not want to mess with a collapsed deck.

Hat tip to Karen Street at A Musing Environment for the link to NOAA's Climate Service.

Permanent post link >>

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy - Alexis Kaplan at Go4Nuclear.com

It is always a pleasure to discover another blogger who is writing about nuclear energy from a perspective of knowledge and sound research. I have recently begun reading a new blog titled Go4Nuclear's Blog. It is being produced by a nuclear engineering student from the University of California at Berkeley. Here is an excerpt from her introductory post published on January 22, 2010:

As a junior at the University of California Berkeley, I’m confronted daily by the, shall we say, “unique” culture that this city has. On occasion, I like to stroll through Sproul Plaza and listen to spiels about what’s wrong with society and today’s youth. Admittedly, most of what I hear just rolls off my back as I move on to whatever class I’m late for, but I always have to stop and soak it in when I find someone ranting about the nuclear engineering research that is taking place at UC Berkeley.

Now you might be thinking that this would dissuade me from a career in nuclear, especially given my unyielding love for the quirky, liberal atmosphere that is Berkeley. On the contrary, I have more opportunities than most to talk about what I want to do and defend my chosen branch of engineering, and who doesn’t like talking about their passions?

I also enjoyed reading her rebuttal to a post that she found on a Greenpeace blog. You can read it at Nuclear Reaction, Indeed. Go over and say hi. Provide encouragement; most of us know how many other things college students could be doing with their time. They need some reassurance that blogging about what they are learning in their nuclear engineering classes is worth a place on the list of things to do.

Permanent post link >>

STS-130 Night Shuttle Launch

Just in case you want a tiny diversion that provides inspiration on the power of science and technology, here is a short clip of this morning's shuttle launch - mission designation was STS-130.




The voice in the background is a friend from my days at the Naval Academy. He was there because one of the mission specialists on the voyage was Kay Hire, also a college friend, company mate and former teammate on the USNA off-shore sailing team. Space travel is still inspirational and exciting to me.

Here is a link to a meet the crew of STS-130 video

Permanent post link >>

James Hansen's Story About His NY Times Op-Ed That Was Submitted with the Title of "Sack Goldman Sachs’ Cap‐and‐Trade"

The more I read his work, the more I respect James Hansen's intellect and passion. I am reading his recently published book titled Storms of My Grandchildren and learning more than I ever knew before about his work as an atmospheric scientist studying the earth for the past 30 years.

Dr. Hansen and I share a distaste of the proposed "cap and trade" method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions for similar reasons. The primary reason is a near certainty that it not it would even work to reduce emissions, then we move on to questions about the complexity of structuring a market, the enormous financial rewards for people who are not actually doing anything to reduce emissions, and the vast potential for influence peddling and fraud in the market.

Here is a link to an extensive story about Dr. Hansen's effort to get his thoughts out to a wider audience via an op-ed piece in the New York Times and how that effort got sabotaged by editorial decisions. The People vs. Cap and Tax. It is highly recommended reading. I personally like the fee and dividend approach because I believe that the overall effects on the world economy would be beneficial. It would put money into the hands of consumers who are careful about their energy use and give them a greater amount to spend on products and services as diverse as restaurant meals and tuition payments. It would increase the cost of wasting precious fossil fuels that should be used judiciously so we pass some of earth's capital onto distant generations. It would also increase the value of energy production methods that do not use hydrocarbon combustion and do not release any greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Disclosure - of course, I expect to benefit from that last item. I honestly believe that the rest of the world will also benefit, but a guy who writes and talks about the growth of the nuclear industry stands to benefit more than most. Oh well, I guess we all have a bit of self-interest.

Update: There is a postscript to Hansen's The People vs. Cap and Tax that provides some economic arguments against Krugman's defense of the "cap and trade" concept. It is a good read.

Permanent post link >>

Why Do Seemingly Sound Nuclear Projects Have Difficulty Attracting Affordable Financing?

On Friday, February 5, Areva hosted a conference call for invited bloggers to discuss the progress that they were making on their Eagle Rock (Idaho) nuclear fuel enrichment facility. Areva was represented on the call by Sam Shakir, the head of Areva Enrichment Services. Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat has a summary write up about the call in a post titled Update on Areva’s Eagle Rock enrichment plant. What I want to do is to explore one aspect of the call in more detail.

During the call, Sam described the facility's technology, the commercial interest in its products, the market demand, and the capacity provided by other suppliers. He talked at length about the company's successful efforts to sign up large utility customers to more than $4 billion worth of long term contracts for purchasing the output of the facility and about Areva's own commitment of more than $1 billion in equity. He then talked about the vital importance of the US Department of Energy loan guarantee and the impact that significant delays in finalizing that arrangement would have on the project.

I have been involved in a number of efforts - some successful and some not - in obtaining financing. With that background I started the following dialog:

Rod Adams: With a company like Areva and commitments from the kind of customers that you have under contract, why would a bank care whether or not you have a US government loan guarantee? Your project sounds imminently financeable without it.

Sam Shakir (Areva): Great question. I appreciate you asking it. On paper, this would be an ideal project to finance. Because you have proven technology with performance that is on record for a couple of decades at least. You have contracts from credit worthy customers that go on for fifteen years and envelop the period of financing that we would be looking for. We have a very supportive community in Idaho and a licensing track that is well-proven with the NRC given the LES experience with the same kind of plant.

So all in all, it looks great. We have a rating agency that has given us an investment grade rating. Having said all that and putting it all together and considering the long term construction of the project and considering that there is the word nuclear associated with the project it remains a major issue for commercial banks. They don't know anything about this kind of facility.

It's not like a gas fired plant where they know what it is going to take, how long it will take to construct and know the outcome. This is a unique project that is not financeable in the commercial marketplace. We have visited with a number of banks and have very clear indication that this is not possible to finance in the open market without a loan guarantee.

Steve Packard from Depleted Cranium pointed out that it is currently difficult to obtain any kind of financing for any project.

Sam Shakir: What I just said was all true prior to the collapse of the capital markets. It is even more true today given the credit crunch and the unavailability of these kinds of large sums of money to offer to projects like ours. It's even that much more difficult today.

Investors are not patient to wait for returns on projects that are this long in terms of construction. That's the key driver. The second thing that we hear is in terms of abandonment. They still remember the nuclear projects that were abandoned because of cost overruns. They recognize that this is not a reactor project, but again, the "n" word is there and they are not willing to take that risk.

This response gnawed at me for several hours after the call. I am a vigorous advocate of nuclear technology; it distressed me to again hear just how dependent the industry is on government decision making. I know that government decisions can get derailed or delayed as a result of many influences, including those that come in the form of lobbying efforts from competitive industries.

I am not religiously opposed to government involvement in important infrastructure projects, but it does not bode well when even the leaders of the soundest of nuclear projects believe that they cannot proceed without a government loan guarantee. It is not as if Areva will actually be receiving any money from the government - it will, instead, pay a hefty fee up front to pay for the cost of the government review and risk assumption.

In the case of this particular project, there is not even the often repeated excuse that the project is outside of the financial capacity of the company - Areva has a large enough capital base to be able to carry a $2 billion loan under normal circumstances, especially since it is putting at least $1 billion of its own equity into the project.

I decided to obtain another opinion about the reasons for the stated reluctance by commercial banks, so I contacted a banker who has been involved in financing energy related projects for a couple of decades. Roy Piskadlo was with Merrill Lynch when I first met him; now is is with Pareto Commodity Partners. I asked him the following question:

The man in charge of Areva's planned Eagle Rock enrichment facility spoke to a small group of bloggers about the project. He provided an interesting description of the project, the customers that it has signed up and then spoke about the fact that the company is waiting on the final documents for its Department of Energy guaranteed loan. He said that without that guarantee, they cannot obtain financing.

I was a bit incredulous. Here is one of the largest companies in the world, almost wholly owned by a large country, with $5 billion worth of long term contracts signed by monopoly utility companies that is building a $2 billion plant in a supportive community that is nearly identical to one that they are already operating in France. How can it be that such a project is not considered to be credit worthy without a government loan guarantee?

Here is Roy's response:

Rod

I am not surprised at all. I believe that the real problem that is being addressed by the loan guaranties are delays either during construction or upon start up that are due to lawsuits brought by people apposed to nuclear power. I believe that you could get the project financed in many first world countries with the fact pattern that you described without the loan guaranties (certainly that would be the case in France and Japan). One of the biggest problems that we have in this country with regard to restarting the nuclear power industry is that a project could be stopped either during construction or upon starting operation at COD with a lawsuit by someone apposed to nuclear power. The fact that the project is located in a supportive community is very helpful but we all know that lawsuits in this country can come from anywhere and not just the local community. From a lenders perspective, the risk of delayed operation in this country is too great (delayed operation equals no cash flow from operations).

The delay risk is really limited to either new greenfield projects or expansions (i.e. brownfield projects). Lenders will bear project nuclear plant operating risk. There are examples around the world where lenders bear the risk that plants get taken off line. The project entity is typically required to hold cash in a debt service reserve to cover debt service during the time a plant has been forced off line. A more recent example is Entergy's proposed spin-off of their nuclear power plant subsidiary. The entity is expected to own 6 operating nuclear power plants and be spun-off to ETR's existing shareholders to become a separate listed and traded company who's primary business is to generate and sell power using nuclear power plants. The entity will issue approximately $3.4 billion of debt that will ultimately be held by third parties. After the spin-off, the entity is only expected to retain $750 million of cash for working capital. Said another way, the primary credit support for the $3.4 billion of debt will be the operating cash flows from the business.

So that is the dilemma; nuclear construction projects seem to carry a uniquely difficult to quantify risk reputation in the financial community. The bankers have long memories of projects that were delayed - often for years at a time. Those delays added costs, but more importantly, they pushed the period of revenue generation off into an uncertain future. Because the delays were often caused by government action, inaction or distraction due to lawsuits, they are seen to be solvable only by having the government stepping in to back the loan and make lenders whole in the case of a significant project delay.

For those fiscal conservatives that dislike nuclear because they believe that all industries should be able to stand on their own feet without the government propping them up, my plea to you is to help us figure out a way to ensure that a yes is a yes. The United States did not achieve its position of leadership in the world by being a place where investors had to worry about sovereign risk or a place where contracts could be invalidated with the stroke of pen in the hand of a newly elected leader or, even worse, an appointed bureaucrat.

Nuclear technology is a key tool in our effort to address energy security and limit pollution caused by fossil fuel combustion. Not only will new nuclear power plants help our economy prosper, but nuclear fuel services facilities will also take advantage of the fact that our market for those services is, and should remain, the largest in the world.

Permanent post link >>

Quantifying Risks of Tritium in Response to an Op-Ed Piece from the "Radioactive Watchdog" at "Beyond Nuclear"

There is an op-ed piece in the New Hampshire Sentinel-Source titled READER OPINION: Radiation must be taken seriously written by Kevin Kamps. The op-ed is focused on trying to elevate concerns about tritium found in the groundwater at Vermont Yankee. He is responding to an article that the paper had previously published titled Scientists: Tritium levels not concern, but source is. In other words, rather than trying to provide information, it is a blatant effort to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the safety of the plant and its positive contributions to the New England environment and economy.

Mr. Kamps's op-ed included the following quote:

For example, Dr. Bertell, a Grey Nun of the Sacred Heart who holds a Ph.D. in biometrics and received the Right Livelihood Award (the alternative Nobel Peace Prize) for her lifelong work to protect human health against the hazards of radioactivity and toxic chemicals, has testified that “a zero Health Based Goal for tritium in water is the only acceptable goal for regulation from a public health standpoint.”

Update: (Posted February 8, 2009) A reader commented and provided a link to a Depleted Cranium post that includes a YouTube video with an interview of Dr. Rosalie Bertell opining on the hazards of what she calls "chemtrails" (aka contrails to those of us who have a stronger grasp on reality). I thought it was worth letting you see for yourself what kind of "authority" Mr. Kamps is quoting.


End Update.

Here is my response to Mr. Kamps, just in case the site moderator does not get around to approving the comment. "

Though I do not hold a PhD in biometrics - or anything else - I have a spreadsheet and can set it up to do math. I also understand the definition of "picocurie" and recognize that life on Earth is full of "risks". The only way to live without constant fear is to understand the magnitude of the risks, take action to avoid the important ones and stop worrying about the unimportant ones.
A "picocurie" is 1 x 10^-12 curies. Said another way, a picocurie is to a curie as a penny is to $10 BILLION. A curie is not a large unit; a curie of tritium has a mass of just 0.1 milligrams.
Putting all of those numbers in my spreadsheet tells me that 20,000 picocuries/liter is just 0.000000000002 grams of tritium in 1000 grams of water. You could drink that water for a year as your ONLY source of fluid and get a total dose of just 3-4 millirem which is 1/100th of the average annual dose from background radiation in the US.
Yes, there are people who claim that you can never get down to zero risk until you get to zero dose, but there is no such thing here on Earth; it is a naturally radioactive place. The radiation from such low levels of tritium is lost in the noise of natural variation.
I have far more important things to worry about - like those thousands of tons per day of potentially carcinogenic materials that each large coal plant dumps into the atmosphere through its smokestacks. I much prefer getting my electricity from zero emission nukes that occasionally find bit of tritium with a mass of 0.000000000002 grams/liter.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

According to the author "signature" at the bottom of the op-ed, Mr. Kamps is the "Radioactive Watchdog" at the Tacoma Park anti-nuclear organization called Beyond Nuclear, a Helen Caldicott founded organization now led by Paul Gunter. According to Mr. Kamps's bio he has been employed as an anti-nuclear activist for his whole career. The bio does not mention his educational background.

The organization that he works for earns its living by fighting nuclear technology, though they couch their mission in educational terms. I assume that the chosen mission phrasing is designed to enable them to qualify for a tax exempt status. Here is a quote from the organization's "About" page:

About Beyond Nuclear

Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear.

Permanent post link >>

Nuclear Energy Is Cheap and Disruptive; Controlling the Initial Cost of Nuclear Power Plants is a Solvable Problem

Many of the most virulent anti-nuclear activists have begun focusing almost exclusively on spreading the assumption that nuclear energy means expensive energy. They have been helped in this effort by statements from the established nuclear industry who claim that new plants are so expensive that they require government assistance and incentives in order to get them financed and built.

The fundamental aspect of nuclear energy that the rest of us need to understand is that fission heat is actually quite cheap. The average total production cost from a US nuclear power plant today is just 1.86 cents per kilowatt-hour. That total is normally broken into two pieces - fuel costs and non-fuel Operations and Maintenance costs. For 2008, nuclear plant owners in the US spent an average of just 0.49 cents per kilowatt hour for fuel and 1.37 cents per kilowatt hour for non-fuel O&M. Here is a quote from the Nuclear Energy Institute that describes what is included in those numbers:

Fuel Costs

This is the total annual cost associated with the "burnup" of nuclear fuel resulting from the operation of the unit. This cost is based upon the amortized costs associated with the purchasing of uranium, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services along with storage and shipment costs, and inventory (including interest) charges less any expected salvage value.

For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling cycle. The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2008 was 0.49 cents / kWh.

Because nuclear plants refuel every 18-24 months, they are not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and oil power plants.

Monthly Fuel Cost to U.S. Electric Utilities

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs

This is the annual cost associated with the operation, maintenance, administration, and support of a nuclear power plant. Included are costs related to labor, material & supplies, contractor services, licensing fees, and miscellaneous costs such as employee expenses and regulatory fees. The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2008 was 1.37 cents / kWh.

When nuclear plants are producing and selling electricity into the US grid, where the wholesale price of electricity has a weighted average of more than 5 cents per kilowatt hour, a 1000 MWe nuclear power plant will produce about $275 million per year in revenue above its cost of operation.

That is a very nice asset to have, as long as the capital repayment expenditures are less than that amount. How many manufacturing assets are there that can run for 60-80 years with predictable, low operating costs and a product that is always in some demand and has no potential for going out of style?

It is not as if there is something uniquely difficult about turning atomic heat into electricity compared to turning fossil fuel combustion heat into electricity. The conversion process is well understood and can be learned from textbooks that have been readily available for at least 5 decades. The machinery is very similar to the machinery used in fossil fuel plants and has had most of the kinks worked out, so it is quite reliable. Because the mass of material that has to run through the plant every day is several powers of ten smaller than similarly sized fossil fuel plants, fission plants can be far simpler, less dependent on external supply chains, and easier to operate.

The material input into machinery needed to perform the conversion from potential energy in uranium and thorium should not only be reasonably predictable, but it should lower than the total resources required for machinery that supports operation of a fossil fuel plant. (That statement includes the equipment associated with fuel delivery and waste disposal.) The conversion equipment should be subject to the same kinds of manufacturing and construction process refinements that decrease the costs for most manufactured products.

As many formerly dominant players in markets as diverse as appliances, microprocessors and telecommunications equipment have found, the only route to survival is continued improvements that lower costs without sacrificing quality. If they decide to defend their existing models and maintain high costs, they will be overrun by more nimble competitors who resolutely work to improve and refine their production systems.

This same model has been applied in most energy production systems - except nuclear. My contention is that the failure cannot be blamed on uranium, thorium or the fission process itself; it must be blamed on human decisions that can be changed. If the last remaining issue that hinders widespread nuclear energy deployment is system cost, the answer to that challenge is to implement improvements that lower the cost without changing the existing track record of reliable, safe, low cost performance.

In one of my many jobs, I was the General Manager of a small plastic injection molding company that competed across a number of product lines with much larger companies and with companies from overseas that had far lower labor costs. We were constantly challenging ourselves with ways to improve production and lower the inputs to our products without sacrificing quality. It is a solvable problem that gets easier as you repeat the same process frequently enough so you do not forget what you learned the last time you did it.

Whenever I hear people say that they resist new nuclear plant construction because "it costs too much", I want to respond with a measured, logical argument that points to all of the cost drivers that can be attacked and improved. With nuclear energy, we do not have to attack the cost of operators, the cost of fuel, or the cost of transportation. All of those costs are well under control and do not drive the overall costs - remember, they total up to be about 1.86 cents per kilowatt hour.

The cost that we need to attack is the total cost and duration required to move from a condition of no plant to a complete plant that has a 40 year initial operating license with a reliable connection to the grid. The longer it takes to achieve that condition, the longer the delay to revenue generation. The higher the total bill accumulated, the higher the principal and interest payments will be once revenue begins. Most of the components of that total cost can and should be controlled.

Aggressive, effective project, licensing, and construction managers can help to keep costs under control and will make the difference between building a cash cow and building a white elephant. Smaller plants that can be built in series might help, factory production techniques will help, modular construction techniques will help, the use of CAD/CAM will help, big cranes will help, careful but creative financial management will help, effective licensing processes will help, and good community support that minimizes interference will help.

If "Wall Street" does not want to provide long term financing that can be repaid with reliable, steady payments for many decades, perhaps Main Street can step in. One of the things to remember about "Wall Street" bankers is that they have been gambling with pension fund and mutual fund money. That money does not magically arrive in Wall Street banks, it gets put there by hundreds of millions of people that live in the rest of the world. Many investors would be happy to be able to count on regular interest or dividend payments in the 5-8% range that lasted for decades; perhaps what we need are some community based banks or investment funds that focus specifically on understanding and taking advantage of the opportunities in long term finance for nuclear energy facilities.

Introducing and deploying disruptive technology is never easy, and it often results in broken business relationships and alliances. It is, however, worth the effort and the risk of potential failure when the payoff is a large and reliable stream of income. The earth will be a much more enjoyable place to live when we successfully enable access to vastly increased quantities of abundant, affordable, emission-free, electricity, heat and vessel propulsion power. Well managed nuclear energy projects have the technical ability to deliver, especially if the people involved apply all of the available lessons from both related and seemingly unrelated manufacturing enterprises.

Permanent post link >>

NRC FY2011 Budget Request is $13.3 Million LESS Than The 2010 Budget Appropriation

I was happy to hear President Obama's positive statement during the State of the Union Address about building new nuclear power plants. I was also encouraged when that statement was seemingly followed up with an expansion of the DOE's authority to provide loan guarantees for new nuclear energy production facilities.

I was even pleased to hear that the Administration had decided to stop wasting time and money on a license application for the Yucca Mountain facility since it had already decided that the facility would not be opened. I know that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been strapped for resources and figured that the cancellation would offer the opportunity to redirect some scarce bodies and office space to something more useful - like reviewing new reactor license application in a more time efficient manner.

Unfortunately, I recently discovered that the chairman of the NRC has decided to save a few pennies for the government and request $13.3 million LESS than his agency received in its 2010 appropriation.

If this presidential budget submission request is not corrected by decisive congressional action, it will lead to continued NRC bottlenecks driven by a scarcity of adequately trained and experienced license reviewers. The noted scarcity of office space and conference areas required to efficiently drive through the detailed process of reviewing the mountains of paper associated with each application will continue to plague the agency and demoralize its employees.

When license reviews are delayed due to bureaucratic constraints, hiring gets delayed, purchases from suppliers get delayed, production of clean, emission-free electricity gets delayed, and investors find more amenable places to put their money. It is unfathomable to me that an agency that is the gatekeeper on multi-billion dollar projects would decide NOW that it needs to constrain its budget request so that not only does it fail to keep up with an increasing mission, but it fails to even keep up with inflation.

The dollars saved are tiny compared to the dollars that will be wasted because of applications that wait that much longer on desks of overworked reviewers. This issue just might be worth a letter or two to your friendly neighborhood congressman.

Permanent post link >>

Tom Friedman Advocates a New National Race That is More Important Than the Space Race

Tom Friedman is an author who can never be accused of being boring. People often love him or hate him. In the below clip he wishes for a "perfect storm" that is big enough to convince people that climate change is real, but small enough so that it does not "end the world." That is a rather provocative way to express his desire for a greater understanding and recognition of the dangers of continuing to dump massive quantities of greenhouse gases into the environment.

On a more interesting and logical note, he also points out that a "flat, crowded world" needs all of the clean energy it can find. The companies and the countries who lead the effort will be big winners.

Planet Forward Interview with Thomas Friedman (2 of 2): Webisode 104 from Center for Innovative Media on Vimeo.

Permanent post link >>

Is a Federal Grant Really Income? (Wow, I Never Knew That - Sarcasm)

Here is an interesting lede from a story in RenewablesBiz.com titled Non-conformity Taxing Developers:

Ask any renewable energy project developer what saved the market from total collapse in 2009 and the unanimous answer would be the cash grants program from the U.S. Treasury. That's the Section 1603 program changes in the Recovery Act in which project developers were given the option of accepting immediate cash payments of 30 percent of the project's cost in lieu of 10 years of production tax credits for the generation output. But there's some worry if that success can continue as some states are now considering the grants taxable income.

These gifts from the federal government amounting to 30% of the total cost of a project came in CASH, not as a standby guarantee - sort of like a co-signature - just in case something happened to a project during its development. Generally speaking, grants count as taxable income - just ask anyone who has filled out tax reports for a child who has earned a scholarship or two to attend college.

However, the federal legislation that provided the grants in lieu of production tax credits in an attempt to salvage uneconomic renewable energy projects recognized that giving with one arm of the U. S. Treasury and taking with the hand of the IRS would not provide the lift that the industry needed to stay afloat, so they specifically exempted the grants from federal income taxes.

(Aside: Should I have used the pejorative term of "bailout" like the anti-nuclear industry does for the loan guarantee program? End Aside.)

Despite what the federal government has decided to do for the renewable energy industry, the states that host the large scale renewable energy projects that received the grants in lieu of tax credits have real costs associated with providing services to the project and its employees. Transporting massive turbine blades snarls traffic and requires assistance from the local and state police. The employees send their children to school, they expect the local ambulances to be ready to serve, they put a strain on water systems, and they use state parks when the weekend comes around. In other words, the states do not have the same considerations as the federal government and do not necessarily have to decide to give tax exemptions in line with what the federal government decides to do.

The article goes on to indicate that the project developers are proceeding without resolving the issue, even though it represents a potentially large liability. I guess they have the same philosophy that some naval aviators I know have - "tis easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission." Perhaps they expect that they will win in court and not have to pay the tax on their federal gifts - or should I say "preemptive bailouts".

When you read about the record deployment of wind turbines during 2009, and the often stated mantra from people like Amory Lovins that, compared to nuclear energy, "renewables are cheaper, faster, vaster, equally or more carbon-free, and more attractive to investors", please remember that the US taxpayers picked up 30% of the initial cost with a program that is only available for projects that must begin construction between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. There is only so much time available for developers to capture this free money, so they are moving fast.

Related Reading

From New York State: turbines exempt from sales tax - This article describes how wind turbines and their parts are exempt from sales tax in the state of New York. That is a nice subsidy for wind turbine manufacturers - you know, small, struggling companies like GE, Siemens and Vestas.

Permanent post link >>

PBMR Status Update - Memorandum of Understanding With Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)

Over the past several days, I have read a series of somewhat troubling and negative articles about the PBMR project in South Africa. There is pressure from the government and discussion about whether or not the large project, which employs about 750 scientists, engineers and technicians, will continue to be funded.

There is good reason for concern - the project has been in existence for about 15 years and has not yet succeeded in building a power generation plant. Though I am a fan of the basic technology, I can understand why there are some calls for termination. My own call would be more of a "put up or shut up" call for the organization to focus and actually start building products for paying customers so they could stop being completely dependent upon government support, but there is also a substantial amount of pressure coming from people who do not even want the project to succeed.

This morning I received a press release from PBMR Pty Ltd that provided at least some reason for optimism that the team will not be completely broken up and that at least some valuable technology will finally enter the commercial market. Here is the complete release, along with contact information if you want to find out more.

South Africa’s Pebble Bed company joins forces with MHI of Japan

The advancement of the next generation of nuclear reactors has received a boost with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 3 February by South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Ltd (PBMR) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd (MHI) of Japan.

MHI did the basic design and research and development of a helium-driven turbo generator system and Core Barrel Assembly, the major components of PBMR’s original 400 MW thermal, direct-cycle design. This concept was changed last year to a 200 MWt design which delivers super-heated steam through a generator.

The main objective of the MOU is to explore cooperation to enable the construction of the first PBMR reactor for a customer in either South Africa or abroad. The MOU sets out the basis on which the parties will negotiate to identify a project or projects with the potential for possible cooperation. When such areas have been agreed, MHI will conduct part of the research and development activities for the 200 MWt plant design. Possibilities for further collaboration will be probed, including construction of the first plant.

The 200 MWt design is aimed at steam process heat applications operating at 720°C, which provides the basis for penetrating the nuclear heat market as a viable alternative for carbon-burning, high-emission heat sources. In addition to generating electricity, this concept can also service potential customers such as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project in the US, which is funded by the US Department of Energy, oil sands producers in Canada and the South African petro-chemical industry.

According to Mr. Akira Sawa, MHI’s Executive Vice-President and General Manager of Nuclear Energy Systems, MHI is delighted to still be involved in the PBMR project. “We firmly believe that High Temperature Reactors will be one of the viable future reactors. We are therefore prepared to perform certain research and development work to assist in the success of this project.”

He says the future potential of the technology lies in the utilisation of higher output temperatures from the reactor system. “There are therefore important additional technological development opportunities that can be exploited. The possibility that PBMR may in future still want to pursue the direct cycle, gas-turbine design, should also not be ruled out.”

PBMR CEO Jaco Kriek welcomed the cooperation with MHI. He said the MOU can create interesting opportunities for the future commercialization of the technology, such as jointly developing and exploiting markets for the pebble bed plants.

“Both companies believe that high temperature, gas-cooled reactors using pebble fuel offer the best potential for sustainable, clean, reliable and safe sources of energy globally,” says Kriek. He added that MHI’s participation in the project further demonstrates the potential for advanced reactor technologies with passive, inherently safe characteristics.

“The pebble bed technology will bring a new option to the energy market which offers flexible, smart grid solutions for electricity, customer-centric process heat and steam solutions for petrochemical industries, oil sands extraction and desalination. It will also pave the way to high-temperature hydrogen production.”

He pointed out that the PBMR is especially considered to be well suited to applications in areas lacking a fully developed power transmission grid.

About PBMR

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a high temperature gas-cooled reactor with a closed-cycle, gas turbine power conversion system. Although it is not the only gas-cooled, high-temperature reactor currently being developed in the world, the South African project is internationally regarded as a leader in the global high-temperature reactor technology. The PBMR is characterised by inherently safe features, which mean that no human error or equipment failure can cause an accident that would harm the public.

Heat from the PBMR can be used for a variety of industrial process applications, including process steam for cogeneration applications, in-situ oil sands recovery, ethanol applications, refinery and petrochemical applications. The high-temperature heat can also be used to reform methane to produce syngas (where the syngas can be used as feedstock to produce hydrogen, ammonia and methanol); and to produce hydrogen and oxygen by decomposing water thermochemically. The waste heat of the PBMR can furthermore be applied to produce water via desalination.

About Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd (MHI), headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, is one of the world’s leading heavy machinery manufacturers. MHI’s diverse lineup of products and services encompasses shipbuilding, power plants, chemical plants, environmental equipment, steel structures, industrial and general machinery, aircraft, space rocketry and air-conditioned systems.
***************************************************************************************************
Issued by: PBMR Corporate Communications
Date: 4 February 2010
Enquiries: Tom Ferreira
E-mail: tom.ferreira@pbmr.co.za
Phone: +27 (0) 83 264 6188 + 27 (0)12 641 1132
Website: http://www.pbmr.co.za

UpdateL Posted on February 5, 2010 at 0612 - Dan Yurman over at Idaho Samizdat has an interesting post dated February 2, 2010 titled Areva peers into the future of nuclear energy. He describes a group called the NGNP alliance composed of some very large, well capitalized companies that is interested in designing and building a 300 MWe high temperature gas cooled reactor. Here is a quote that provides the reason that I added this update to the post about Mitsubishi's involvement with the PBMR:

Market opportunities for the new reactor include providing process heat for oil refineries and chemical plants. The reactor would be designed to deliver heat in the range of 450-550C. For applications in the Alberta tar sands, heat would come out of the reactor at 450C and could be piped up to 10 Km arriving at the mining site at 350C.

Areva is looking for partners to develop the reactor. Southworth said one of them will be Mitstubishi," he said.

In 2009 the Department of Energy announced a $40 million NGNP funding opportunity through the INL's NGNP program. The award date has long since passed with no word from the agency whether it will ever spend the money. "We're disappointed by the delay," Southworth said.

Permanent post link >>

From the Deception Archives - An Ad Published Touting Solar Technology from The Same Year I Graduated From High School

Several weeks ago, I published a copy of an advertisement labeled as a "smoking gun" that was a direct attack on nuclear energy paid for by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island. Today, one of the people I follow on Twitter shared a link to a blog post featuring an advertisement that might surprise people in a different way - it is a large layout advertisement providing the results of an Exxon sponsored solar energy competition. Here are some interesting quotes from the advertisement, which ran in 1977, the same year that I graduated from high school.

Exxon believes making solar energy practical and developing other energy resources are among America's most important tasks. Even with widespread conservation efforts and full development of our remaining oil and gas resources, new energy sources will be required to help ease our growing dependence on imported oil.

I am a curious sort of person who likes to check up on the accuracy of such predictions. According to energy production tables 1.5a and 1.5b available at the US Energy Information Agency web site, the total amount of solar thermal plus solar PV energy produced in the US has grown from 0.055 quadrillion BTUs (Quads) in 1989 to 0.081 quadrillion BTUs (Quads) in 2007. (The table does not start until 1989 and it does not include any data later than 2007 yet.) The total US energy consumption is roughly 100 quadrillion BTU. With high interest and high praise from a large, technically competent and well endowed sponsor like Exxon, it seems that solar energy should have grown faster if the judgement about its potential was accurate. Here is another excerpt from the advertisement:

Exxon believes solar energy's future is bright. It will grow into an important energy source for America because of the contributions of the many people and the many companies that will be competing for your business.

I believe that Exxon engineers and scientists clearly recognized the limitations of solar energy and knew that it would never be competitive with oil and gas. I even believe that the marketing department also knew the same thing, but thought that touting solar energy was a good business decision. It would make the company seem a bit more warm and fuzzy, it would distract people who do not really understand technology into believing that there was some kind of magical solution just around the corner, and it would not do a thing to disrupt the existing - and amazingly profitable - business of supplying a growing fossil fuel addiction.

In contrast, uranium fission produced 2.6 quadrillion BTUs in 1977, 5.5 quadrillion BTUs in 1989 and 8.4 quadrillion BTUs in 2008. The average production cost of electricity in US nuclear power plants is only 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour; almost none of that cost changes whether the power plant is operating at full power or no power. Metering the electricity production is almost worthless, customers could be billed on a capacity basis with "unlimited" kilowatt hours, just like they are with cellular phones or Internet access.

Can you see why I get so defensive when people laugh at nuclear power advocates and say how wrong we were because an appointed chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission once said the following:

It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."

Lewis L. Strauss
Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City September 16th, 1954.

It seems that Strauss was not so far off; my own father was an adult in 1957. He could have been in that audience. We are well on our way to meeting the vision stated. Now if we can just start building plants again and apply some known manufacturing and construction techniques that reduce costs with increasing production volume, we might be able to really drive the costs down.

Permanent post link >>

President Obama Answers Question From a Young Person By Explaining at Least One Reason to Invest in Nuclear Energy

President Obama recently participated in a virtual town hall meeting via YouTube, answering questions submitted by viewers. Here is a clip of a question about investing in nuclear energy.



We need to help financially inexperienced people, young and old, learn to recognize the important difference between spending and investing. When you invest money into an asset like a nuclear power plant that will be able to produce a valuable product like reliable, emission-free electricity in locations where there is a strong demand for that product, you can expect to get a return on your money that exceeds the amount that you put in up front. If the project managers are talented, the designers do their job, and the operators use their traditional attention to detail, the plant should be able to produce a valuable product for many decades, making that investment pay off richly for a long time.

If, on the other hand, you put the same amount of money into trying to find new ways to capture what we know to be weak, weather dependent and unreliable sources of energy like the wind and the sun, you might find something. You are much more likely, however, to end up with an expensive asset that occasionally produces electricity on a schedule that does not match customer demand and perhaps works best only in places where there are no customers at all without a long, lossy, expensive, and potentially vulnerable transmission line connection to a market.

From my point of view, there are a lot of better ways that the President could answer the young lady's question, but for now, I am just pleased to see that at least some of the benefits of nuclear energy are causing a new level of discussion and acceptance.

Permanent post link >>

Another Artist for Nuclear Energy - Introducing pop atomic

It has been a long running tradition in the small, but growing world of pro-nuclear bloggers to give a shoutout, link and welcome to newly discovered bloggers who are writing about nuclear energy in a positive light. Eric McErlain, who was blogging at NEI Nuclear Notes at the time, introduced this technique and it has really worked to help people get their work noticed. It also helps us build a community out of people who live around the world.

With today's post, I am hoping to start a new traditional greeting - "Another Artist for Nuclear Energy". I fully realize that writers can fall into the category of "artist", but in this case I am using the more traditional definition of an artist as one who is creating visual works of art as an expression of beauty and interest.

I recently received a comment from a young lady who has decided to make a project out of creating work that shows the positive side of atomic energy at a site called pop atomic. Here is how she introduces her site:

As an artist and concerned citizen I wonder why not atomic energy?

Okay, it doesn’t have a great reputation, but is that because it is intrinsically bad, or because we have been exposed to too many scary nuclear explosion images? What role do these icons play in our perspective on clean safe energy? And most importantly can I change them?

I have decided to get on board with greats like James Lovelock (Nobel Prize Winner) and Patrick Moore (Founder of Greenpeace) and become a proponent of the “nuclear revolution.” Since I am an artist I will use the tools that I have to support this cause.

This is a fascinating development that deserves encouragement. I am especially impressed because our new artist has recognized that nuclear energy is not just a business, it is a cause. I happen to think it is the most important cause I can possibly support because it has the ability to contribute to easing so many challenges that are facing human society - from the provision of adequate energy supplies, to the smoothing out of wealth distribution, to the creation of energy that does not pollute, and to the increased supply of food and clean water.

I have been fascinated about the artistic aspects of nuclear energy for quite some time. Have you ever just gazed at a picture of a used fuel element and wondered at how bright and shiny it looks even after providing a massive quantity of heat for up to 6 years?

I hope that people who build the new generation of plants devote a portion of their construction budget to the design aspects of the project. Because of the compact and nature of atomic fuel and used material, we have an opportunity to built energy production systems that enhance their landscape, rather than deface it by stacking piles of fuel and ash out in the surrounding yards. Diablo Canyon, pictured below, is close to what I am talking about, but even with this photo it should be evident that we can do better. (Photo courtesy of Jim Zim. More Diablo Canyon photos are available at http://www.zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html

Please take a moment or two to visit pop atomic and see what our anonymous artist is doing.

Aside: One reason that I think that nuclear energy needs as many dedicate and activist supporters as possible is the artist behind pop atomic feels the need to remain anonymous at this time. Here is how she explains that decision on her site:

For reasons of personal safety I will not divulge my identity.
(she says she is "mostly kidding")

I currently live in an aggressively liberal city and have lefty leanings myself aside from this one issue. That said, the anti-nuclear sentiment in my community makes this experiment particularly challenging.

If you know who I am please do not mention my personal info to any crazy hippies who might endlessly harass me or deface my belongings...Lord knows I don’t want any trouble.

Otherwise, please enjoy the art and stories that come out of this project, and most of all please seriously consider your views on atomic energy. After all that is what this is really about.

If you are an artist and feel inspired to make some “pop atomic” art of your own please send me images to post on the site. Or if you want to participate in an experiment, or even just have a good story or question please contact me at:

radioactiveart@popatomic.org

Go now and introduce yourself. Show some support so this young lady does not feel so threatened because she supports a technology that has a reputation of being unpopular, even though it just might help save human society from itself.

Permanent post link >>

Scott Peterson, VP of Communications for Nuclear Energy Institute, Discusses Used Fuel Commission

Scott Peterson, the Vice President of Communications for the Nuclear Energy Institute visited with Clean Skies News to talk about his organization's reactions to the formation of the blue ribbon commission on used nuclear fuel policy.



It is heartening to hear an industry spokesman so clearly stating that the industry has accepted the responsibility for storing used fuel for a very long time, that it supports intelligently recycling that material to capture the 95% of the potential energy that remains after one trip through a reactor, that uncertainly about the exact long term used fuel plan was not going to slow down new nuclear plant construction and that there are already plants under construction in Georgia and South Carolina. (I would bet that some of you did not know that construction was already underway here in the United States.)

Permanent post link >>

Atomic Show #149 - Pro Nuclear Bloggers Reaction to SOTU Address

During the 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama took the handcuffs off of the nuclear industry revival when he said:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.

On January 31, 2010, I gathered a large group of active bloggers and nuclear industry professionals to find out what they thought of the statement and its impact on the deployment of new nuclear power plants. My guests were:

• Kelly Taylor, a 24 year nuclear industry professional and frequent Atomic Show guest.
• Meredith Angwin, a physical chemist and small businessperson who has recently started publishing a blog titled Yes, Vermont Yankee.
• Charles Barton, who blogs at Nuclear Green and Energy from Thorium.
• David Bradish, a statistician and blogger at NEI Nuclear Notes.
• Dan Yurman, who blogs at Idaho Samidat, writes for Fuel Cycle Week and is the blogger with the highest readership at The Energy Collective.
• Robert Margolis, a 24 year nuclear engineer who has supported reactors on 3 continents and is currently working in Florida.

In addition to the State of the Union statement, we discussed the increase in the loan guarantee program, and the formation of the blue ribbon commission about used nuclear fuel policy.

We also spent quite a bit of time talking about Vermont Yankee and the incredibly tiny quantity of tritium that has people demanding a full investigation and possibly a plant shutdown because someone found 0.000000029 curies/liter of tritium, an amount that would have a mass of just 0.0000000000029 grams distributed in 1000 grams of water.

Permanent post link >>

The Dose Makes the Poison - Rockwell on Properly Evaluating Radiation Hazards

Ted Rockwell is a man who literally wrote the book on radiation shielding while he was serving as the Technical Director at Naval Reactors. He was in that position during the period when the Nautilus and the Shippingport reactors were built to use the heat generated by fission to produce useful power. Ted has been working around radiation and using his honed communications skills since well before I was born and I am a grandfather! He is a fission pioneer who was there at the beginning of the industry.

Ted has recently posted a new blog titled It's the Dose that Makes the Poison: The Importance of Numbers that adds perspective to scary news stories about leaks and radiation exposure. I highly recommend that you go and read it several times. Bookmark it and refer to it when you get engaged in Internet debates about radiation health effects.

Permanent post link >>

A Signpost Describing A Useful Outlook On Life and Business

Every once in a while, I need to produce a post that is not necessarily related to energy or politics. I just finished watching a master presenter describe a device, the Apple iPad, that is now at the top of my list for my next gadget purchase. I love to read, listen to music, create presentations, and share information with people. I also admire companies that can create finished products that fully integrate a large number of different components into a complete system.

At the end of the presentation, Steve Jobs showed a graphic that does the best job of representing where I like to live my life - at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. That concept demonstrates how intertwined human creativity can be; both technology and art spring from our natural desire to change the world and make it better - or at least different - than it was before we made our contribution.

The signpost also shows a world where there is less distance between those who study books and literature and those who study math and science. Both types of people can learn from each other and do not have to collide in the political or economic world. Scientists and engineers who can write and communicate idea with through speech and graphics are more effective; writers and artists who have a facility with numbers and an understanding of the scientific method can do a better job of creating both realistic and fantasy worlds. Now if only I could find a sign that showed how people who have a liberal view of the world can share visions, dreams and goals with those who consider themselves to be conservatives. . .

Permanent post link >>