Taking It to the Fuel Bank

There’s a nuclear fuel bank open for business. And to think, it was approved by the IAEA just the other day.

The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency approved an IAEA-run repository for nuclear fuel on [December 3], in a move meant to limit proliferation by reducing the incentive for starting domestic uranium enrichment programs.

Oh wait, not that fuel bank:

The first international nuclear fuel repository in the world formally launched operations on Friday at a uranium enrichment facility in Angarsk, Siberia, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced.

This one has also been approved by the IAEA. The point behind both fuel banks is fairly straightforward:

The [Russian] site, approved in 2009 by IAEA governors, would enable countries free of proliferation histories to purchase nuclear power plant fuel on an apolitical basis as an alternative to developing production capabilities that could also generate nuclear-weapon material.

So it’s a way to keep proliferation concerns at bay because countries that have a reliable supply of uranium will not be tempted to open their own enrichment facilities.

A fuel bank also ensures a reliable source should a country not be able to acquire uranium on the open market. That’s important because it damps down problems that could occur if, say, tensions flare between a uranium buyer and seller and the supply dries up.

One fuel bank too many? The more the merrier? The test will come when some countries that haven’t had nuclear energy industries prepare to switch on their first plants – Vietnam, Abu Dhabi – and then run into some kind of supply difficulty. Until then – well, the banks bank the uranium.

---

This last point raises some eyebrows. Steve Kidd, the World Nuclear Association’s Deputy Director General, put it this way:

“Hardly any of the South East Asian nations will be tempted to develop their own enrichment program and so this provision of a fuel bank is largely unnecessary. The market works very efficiently and is very competitive and there shouldn’t be a problem in these countries sourcing uranium.”

That sound like a free marketeer argument the Heritage Foundation might embrace, but there’s more:

“Lack of uranium didn’t stop Japan. It very rapidly built a large nuclear program without its own uranium. It wasn’t a barrier for them and I don’t think it need be a barrier in Asia. Countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia won’t have any problem in sourcing uranium and enrichment from the world market.

Well, that still seems like a free market argument, doesn’t it?Interestingly, though, the idea isn’t to supplant the free market, but to supplement it when it falls down. Kidd’s argument seems to be that that will never happen. He may be right – and it might not matter that he’s right to countries that feared the possibility. This argument seems a non-starter in the face of a perceived need that’s now being answered. You can read the rest of Kidd’s comments about this here.

---

I wouldn’t care to associate Kidd with an Iranian ambassador, but they may have the same fear in mind:

The establishment of a nuclear fuel bank, approved by the main global nuclear watchdog, would amount to "nuclear apartheid," Iran's ambassador to the group [the IAEA] said Saturday.

This CNN story doesn’t name the ambassador, but if he or she believes the IAEA means to replace the commercial market, the bank would have to be reconfigured – right now, it isn’t offering uranium in competition. Later, Iran decided to okay the bank:

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says Tehran agrees to the creation of a global nuclear fuel bank provided that a branch is set up in Iran.

Well, one can ask, anyway.

Shake hands on it: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano (L), and Sergei Kirienko, head of Russia's Rosatom {the country’s nuclear energy authority) agree to a fuel bank last March.

The SEC Accuses AEHI of Fraud

A year or so ago, I wrote:

It may just be that AEHI is trying everything it can to find and develop a market and interest enough venture capital to help it stay afloat until it makes a sale – either in Idaho or China. Certainly not unusual (if a bit unusually far flung), often not successful, but that’s how it works. All one can really do from the outside is speculate. Let’s keep half an eye on AEHI and see how it goes.

Well, both eyes open beats half an eye:

The SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] alleges that Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. (AEHI) has raised millions of dollars from investors in Idaho and throughout the U.S. and Asia while fraudulently manipulating its stock price through misleading public statements that conceal the secret profits reaped by its CEO Donald L. Gillispie and Senior Vice President Jennifer Ransom.

It gets worse:

The SEC’s complaint charges AEHI, Gillispie, and Ransom with violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and names as relief defendants two companies controlled by Gillispie and Ransom (Executive Energy Consulting LLC and Bosco Financial LLC).

As usual in cases like this – that is, that involve alleged misuse of funds -there are alarming details:

Gillispie enriched himself using the proceeds of these nominee sales. Ransom transferred at least $200,000 of the $675,326.14 in proceeds from her sales of AEHI stock to Gillispie. Ransom wrote a check to Bosco (her limited liability company) for the majority of the $200,000, but the check was deposited in Gillispie's Energy Executive bank account, which Gillispie uses for personal expenses, such as jewelry, cruises, and his Maserati sports car. Thus, Gillispie's statement that he never sold AEHI shares was false in light of his use of Ransom and Webb as his nominees for stock sales.

Now, being accused of something and being guilty of it are two different things and the SEC hasn’t yet proven anything. However, if nothing else, this episode reinforces that it’s always wise, regardless of the business, to research any company one wants to invest money in.

The Idaho Statesman has more here.

AEHI’s proposed site in Payette County, Idaho.

Slouching Toward the 2011 Budget

The way Congress decides how to spend money is fairly straightforward: the President presents a budget proposal to Congress that is then hashed out in committee and then by the full House and Senate and then is voted upon.

In some years, though, Congress cannot quite get through all the spending bills and funds the government via other means.

For example, the House last week passed a continuing resolution. That means that the 2011 budget will mirror the 2010 budget with a few tweaks here and there. And the Senate now seems likely to do the same.

What does this mean for nuclear energy? In most respects, we can’t know until later. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has introduced a list of new projects he’d like DOE to undertake and there are older programs that are being retired. A continuing resolution will not fund the new projects – because they were not in the 2010 budget – but will fund the retired programs. So money will need to be swapped around, some new programs will get less money or will wait until 2012.

But there are a few noteworthy bits to note now:

The Senate would provide $8 billion in new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction under a large omnibus year-end spending bill.

That's a bit more than the $7 billion the House approved last week—but far less than the $36 billion President Barack Obama requested in his budget.

DOE has a few projects in line for loan guarantees and the $7 (or $8) billion will about cover them. Loan guarantees don’t really necessitate any outlay from Congress aside from administration, so increasing it doesn’t really affect budget lines very much.

The Senate may vote this week, so stay tuned.

---

Loan guarantees are not completely non-controversial. Aside from the usual anti-nuclear energy suspects, the current mood of fiscal discipline also brings opposition, though I’d say extant examples are not notably honest. For example:

Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, says the record of the Department of Energy in administering loan programs is not encouraging. She cites a 2003 Congressional Budget Office study says default rates can hit 50 percent or more, and that would mean that several projects totaling billions could leave the government footing the bill.

Luckily, there’s not much I have to say here about that 2003 study, because reporter Jesse Emspak does it for me:

The CBO Study doesn't actually say that default rates would be 50 percent, however; it says that the default rate was an assumption that would have to be re-evaluated when the projects were executed.

Just so. Maybe we can now consider that abandoned 2003 study well and truly kaput.

The rest of the story is quite interesting:

But now, some groups that see themselves as fiscal conservatives are saying that the loan guarantees would unfairly shift the risk of defaults to the taxpayers and cost the government money that could better be spent elsewhere. Those with a more libertarian bent say the guarantees distort the cost of capital. If the private sector was willing to finance nuclear energy, they say, it would be done.

Well, these are groups feeling their oats after being out of fashion for awhile, so a little overreach is to be expected, and I admit I find the arguments simultaneously novel (for mainstream consideration) and faintly dusty (libertarians have always felt government “distorts the cost of capital.”) But they add perspectives to the discourse and that’s always welcome.

A Waste of a Good Nuclear Waste Act

As you may have heard, DOE is attempting to withdraw the license application for the Yucca Mountain used nuclear fuel repository from consideration by the NRC. This was a decision that remains controversial and may get a further hearing in the next Congress. Regardless, Yucca Mountain continues its retirement.

Yet it is still being paid for via the Nuclear Waste Fund, described as:

[A] 1 mill (one-tenth of a cent) fee for every kWh of nuclear-generated electricity sold. Congress established the fee and Nuclear Waste Fund, a federal trust, in 1982 to bankroll the DOE repository program.

That may not sound like a lot, but it comes to about $750 million per year and has contributed to a fund that now stands at $25 billion. While one could say that the utilities are paying this. it is actually ratepayers that are doing so.

The Nuclear Waste Act of 1982 set Yucca Mountain as the used fuel repository (through an amendment in 1987) and set the initial fee for the Nuclear Waste Fund. If there is no repository, though:

Ellen C. Ginsberg, general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said there was therefore no longer a basis for collecting the fee. The federal energy secretary makes annual estimates called “fee adequacy reports,” based on the cost to build, operate and close up the repository, but there is now no repository to base a cost estimate on, she said.

That’s true. So, at least until a new program is put into place and a cost determined for it, should there be any fee at all? NEI and NARUC (the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) said in a suit filed against DOE that there should not be. It’s an arguable point, certainly, but it isn’t going to be argued, at least not yet:

A federal appeals court Monday closed one door in a legal battle over the US Department of Energy's continued collection of the nuclear waste fee, but opened another for possible legal action by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and Nuclear Energy Institute.

The judge did dismiss the suit, but not on its merits. Instead, it dismissed it because DOE issued a fee adequacy report, which is necessary to determine the fee. That’s important, as no report had taken into account the termination of the Yucca Mountain project, and the suit requested that DOE do so. So the suit became moot on the procedural detail - the report - but undecided on the more substantive issue - the fee.

NARUC and NEI have 180 days from the issuance of the DOE report (November 1) to file a new lawsuit. So, for another five months or so, this enters wait and see territory.

---

At first, it sounds like a story about unnecessary jitters regarding nuclear energy:

Plans by Belarus to build a nuclear power plant 50 kilometers away from Vilnius are a worry for Lithuania, the country's foreign minister, Audronius Ažubalis, told EurActiv in an exclusive interview.

A worry? That makes it sound as though Belarus is erecting a rusty tub and a few fuel rods. But no:

An official website says that Belarus is now in talks with corporations from France, Japan and South Korea, while maintaining its partnership with the Russian Federation.

And Lithuania has no actual problem with Belarus pursuing nuclear energy:

The minister said Lithuania was not against its neighbor developing nuclear energy - indeed, Vilnius is also planning to replace its Ignalina power plant, which was closed in 2009 after EU pressure.

So what’s the problem? Procedure:

"Any country would [voice concerns] if it were unable to find the proper answers to its concerns according to the Espoo Convention [the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context] and according to IAEA requirements," Ažubalis said.

Oh, okay. Well, Ažubalis is the Foreign Minister – maybe he should pick up the phone. Belarus might well answer.

The Belarus National Library.

Oyster Creek and Cooling Towers

Exelon has announced that its Oyster Creek nuclear plant will close in 2019, ten years before the license to operate it expires. These are the reasons Exelon gives for its decision:

“The plant faces a unique set of economic conditions and changing environmental regulations that make ending operations in 2019 the best option for the company, employees and shareholders,” [Exelon President and COO Chris] Crane said.

And to expand on this a little more:

The decision is based on the cumulative effect of negative economic factors which has caused Oyster Creek’s value to decline.  These factors include low market prices and demand, and the plant’s need for continuing large capital expenditures. Also, potential additional environmental compliance costs based on evolving water cooling regulatory requirements – at both the federal and state government levels – created significant regulatory and economic uncertainty.

The first half of that explanation may well have been mitigated by an improving economy and a rising demand for clean electricity sources. The second half – about environmental regulations – is rather more serious because it is potentially more intractable.

Although Exelon is specifically referring to rulemaking by the New Jersey Environmental Protection Agency, the federal EPA is likewise considering a change to the Clean Water Act that mirrors that of the NJEPA.

This rulemaking concerns cooling towers. Now, while cooling towers are almost iconic symbols of nuclear energy, not all plants use them. Oyster Creek, for example, does not. Likewise, nuclear energy plants are not the only kinds of plants that use them – coal-fired and gas-fired plants do, too, but as with nuclear plants, not universally.

Up to now, rule 316(b) of the Clean Water Act has allowed plant operators to use what it calls the “best technology available” to capture water for plant cooling purposes. The question is: does capturing that water – and returning it to the source – harm aquatic life.

The EPA actually doesn’t know the answer to that question, but it is knowable. A fair number of studies have been done on the issue and have reached similar conclusions.

Take, for example, this Third Way report:

“316(b) could have serious environmental consequences that should be considered in EPA’s analysis. Closed-cycle cooling is not the panacea it appears to be.

Third Way is a centrist think tank. Here’s the British version of the EPA, the U.K. Environment Agency:

A distinct difference in the U.S. approach has been the assumption of 100 percent mortality of any fish eggs, larvae or juveniles entrained in plant cooling systems and discharged back to sea. U.K. studies have shown that substantial portions survive cooling water system passage, potentially reducing the magnitude of entrainment impacts.

Entrainment refers to aquatic creatures, mostly fish, that get pulled into the plant’s cooling system along with the water.

EPA also means to bar from the rule a number of factors, such as water use conflicts, climate change, land use, and the potential cost of electricity to consumers, that represent elements of a cost benefit analysis. This analysis is important because it permits plant operators to demonstrate that taking on the cost of a technology such as cooling towers can do far more harm (up to and including shuttering the plant) than good (rescuing a few fish). The cost and its benefits and harms can be weighed against each other and an option chosen. That option still might be cooling towers – but maybe not, if the full case against them is compelling.

Weighing costs against benefits can be a tough concept – we want modern convenience without negative consequences because it seems the just way to go about things – but that doesn’t really work in any known human endeavor. What one does to keep the scales balanced is to mitigate potential harm as much as possible to gain the considerable benefits.

Power plants do this – they take the environmental impact of the plants very seriously and spend serious money to prove it. NEI’s Insight newsletter has written extensively on the subject of plant operators and their involvement with the aquatic bodies they sit astride. See here for more on impingement and entrainment (and minimizing their harm) and here for more on the ecological stewardship practiced at nuclear energy plants. (I’m sure that coal and gas fired plants do this too, but that’s not our brief.)

Obviously, regulation that might have the impact of closing so many plants has to be considered very seriously and from all angles. Forcing nuclear energy plants to shutter at a time when their emission-free nature is so prized – and alternatives to cooling towers are so effective - seems nutty.  (It’s why the Supreme Court advocated a cost-benefit analysis be applied in these situations.)

The solution isn’t very tough to grasp. Here’s the North American Electric Reliability Corp., which manages the electricity grid:

“The pace and aggressiveness of these environmental regulations should be adjusted to reflect and consider the overall risk to the bulk power system. EPA, FERC, DOE and state utility regulators … should employ the array of tools at their disposal to moderate reliability impacts, including, among other things, granting required extensions to install emission controls”

That’s written in NERC-ese, but it contains a workable solution: clearly, the government and industry both want fish and other aquatic creatures to live happy and full lives, so a rule that allows utilities the flexibility to choose the “best available technology” that works best at their sites and permits cost-benefit analyses strikes a balance between the needs of business and the prerogatives of EPA. Granted, a “one-size-fits-all” rule makes things easier for EPA, but promises a good deal of unnecessary havoc for energy consumers.

None of this has come to pass yet – EPA expects to issue a draft rule, with a public comment period following, around February – but if you are so inclined, read through the documents referenced below and email the EPA and your representatives in Congress.

NEI has gathered together an extensive collection of documents on this issue. Start here and, if you want to know more, start googling. There’s a lot out there.

Oyster Creek.

The New Millennium Nuclear Energy Summit

The Third Way, a policy organization in Washington, held a conference yesterday called the New Millennium Nuclear Energy Summit, which proved to be exceptionally consequential.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu called for nuclear power to be part of the mix as the nation moves toward mandating that power companies use more clean and renewable energy. As much as 25 percent of the country's power could be from clean energy by 2025,

That’s a start, but not that different than what Chu has said consistently. The consequential part comes with the push for a clean energy standard, which would include nuclear energy along with renewable energy sources as a means to reduce carbon emissions.

“Our Republican friends in the Senate are less comfortable with a renewable electricity standard. They are more comfortable with a clean energy standard that would allow some credit early on for nuclear [and] some credit early on for clean coal,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). “Some kind of clean energy standard might actually bridge the difference between the two sides. We’re not going to put a price on carbon, at least for awhile.”

Carper, I should note, is agreeing with his Republican colleagues. And so does Secretary Chu:

“A clean energy portfolio standard is one example of a potential policy that the administration and Congress should discuss,” said Chu.

Indeed. If an important goal of energy policy is to reduce carbon emissions, then leaving nuclear energy off to the side, as most proposals for a renewable energy standard have done, sells the entire policy short. Here’s some more from Chu:

“I think 50 percent [of energy generation from clean energy sources] by 2050 is about right. Quite frankly, I think 25 percent by 2025 is about right. Anything shorter than that is too short for nuclear, but by 2025 there’s enough breathing room so people can make plans.”

And one way to achieve this is through government loan guarantees.  The likelihood of a project defaulting is very low, but the amount of money required to build a plant is enough to make banks hesitate.

President Obama and Chu have both demonstrated support for an increase in loan guarantee volume, which Congress has to approve.

“In the near term, one of the things that we are focused on is additional loan guarantee money,” said Carol Browner, director of energy and climate change policy at the White House. “We have already made one conditional loan guarantee. … We would like to make more. There are projects in the queue, but as people are keenly aware, there are not adequate resources for all the potential projects in the queue.”    

Browner said the administration would be working with Congress to find additional funding opportunities for loan guarantees.

Panel participants urged the members of Congress in attendance to think big when it comes to a clean energy standard.

David Crane, president and chief executive officer of NRG Energy, said that he would like to see a standard with clean energy making up 50 percent of the portfolio by 2050.

“A clean energy portfolio standard is not just a renewable portfolio standard on testosterone,” said Crane. “We’re not talking about a 15 percent niche for wind and solar, we’re talking about something that should be at least 50 percent. A clean energy portfolio standard properly done is a national energy policy.”    

A recurring theme of the conference was the need for concrete action.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) summed it all up nicely:

“Nuclear energy is going to provide baseload [capacity] for America to move [in]to the 21st century. We were the leader in the world on this and we put it on the shelf. It’s time to take it back off the shelf.”

A consequential meeting.

TJ Swanek contributed substantially to this post.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu

Deposits at the Fuel Bank

The IAEA approves a fuel bank:

The fuel bank would offer nations civilian atomic reactor fuel on an apolitical basis in hopes of deterring them from pursuing their own capability to produce such material -- a process that could also generate nuclear-weapon fuel.

Essentially, it does this by providing enriched uranium when there is a disruption in the commercial supply. The idea is that this limits proliferation opportunities because the host country will not do the enrichment itself.

Naturally, there are still a lot of details to work out:

Undecided aspects of the plan include the site of the fuel supply, the precise process by which the bank could acquire additional fuel and how its capacity could be increased.

This story goes into more details of Warren Buffett’s involvement, which was considerable:

"Throughout my lifetime I will be interested in this subject and I will back that interest up with money," Buffett told Reuters. "If the project sounds like a good one and has any real chance of reducing the probabilities of the terrible use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, I'm prepared to put up significant money."

And he did back it up with money - $50 million worth, matched by the United States and other countries, with Kuwait’s $10 million kicking the total over the necessary $150 million to get started.

The Washington Post was not able to get a response from the Obama administration (though it’s known to want it), but did weigh in with a quote from former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative:

"This is a breakthrough in global cooperation to enable peaceful uses of nuclear energy while reducing the risks of proliferation and catastrophic terrorism."

Indeed it is. Much more to come about this.

---

I didn’t know what to think:

The [chair of the] Kuwaiti National Committee for Utilizing Nuclear Power for Peaceful Purposes, Dr. Ahmad Bushara, said "Kuwait seeks to build four 1,000 MW nuclear power plants, to produce electricity, by January 2011."

Well, that’s ambitious, since ground hasn’t been broken for the first plant yet. But Dr. Bushara, perhaps badly translated or perhaps just a victim of a typo, means that the committee wants to get the ball rolling then.

He added, that by 2013, Kuwait will go out on bidding for its first nuclear project and launch its first nuclear power plant by 2020-2022.

That’s more like it.

---

We’ve followed the German struggles with keeping its nuclear plants open with both amusement and dismay. Amusement because the Germans are complaining despite being in a very good place – safe nuclear plants, a good head start on meeting carbon emission reduction targets – and dismay because the government dithered so long that it led to people protesting against their own best interest.

Others have the same attitude:

Putin recognized that "the German public does not like the nuclear power industry for some reason." He continued: "But I cannot understand what fuel you will take for heating. You do not want gas, you do not develop the nuclear power industry, so you will heat with firewood?" Putin then noted, "You will have to go to Siberia to buy the firewood there," as Europeans "do not even have firewood."

Putin is, of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin, showing he can bring his customary bluntness to any situation. Russia has a bad habit of turning off the natural gas spigot to the West, so there’s that. But when he’s right, he’s right.

NRG, STP and eVgo

Want to see how complicated business can be? Consider:

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC or NINA, the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. and Toshiba, has awarded the engineering, procurement and construction contract for South Texas Project Units 3 & 4 to a restructured EPC consortium formed by Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corporation, a US based Toshiba subsidiary, and The Shaw Group. Both the new nuclear units of the South Texas Project will use ABWR technology.

The actual contract is a natural, as NRG owns 44 percent of the South Texas Project, so Toshiba and NRG have awarded a contract for an NRG part owned project to a Toshiba part owned subsidiary. Here’s how the Shaw Group fits in:

Engineering service provider Shaw Group, Inc. announced Monday that it will expand its global strategic partnership with Japanese electronics maker Toshiba Corp.

And one of the provisions:

Under the global strategic partnership, Shaw will invest $250 million for an ABWR [advanced boiling water reactor] alliance with Toshiba. This includes providing a $100 million credit facility to NINA to assist in financing the South Texas Project.

This complex of companies (and their subsidiaries)  have the common goal of getting two reactors built in Texas and this news shows, in part, how that will be accomplished. Toshiba builds the reactors, Shaw Group offers engineering, procurement and construction services and NRG provides the site. It may seem convoluted, but the result is more electricity.

---

A visit to NRG’s web site provided an answer to a question that has niggled the mind a bit: if electric cars take off commercially, is it more likely that recharging the car will happen at home or on the road at the equivalent of a gas station?  Answer, at least as NRG sees it: both.

eVgo is a dedicated ecosystem of home electric vehicle charging docks and network charging stations united by affordable, set-rate charging plans from energy industry leader NRG.

Right now, it looks like NRG is setting up its eVgo stations around Houston. eV stands for electric vehicle (I assume the cap V is marketing; maybe it stands for the “voltage” to power the car) and go stands for go.

As the bit above shows, NRG is trying a monthly plan with different tiers based on whether one wants to use the charging stations or not – but the top rate is $89 per month. This includes all the electricity the car needs, presumably as long as one stays around Houston.

So far, electric cars have been marketed as around town vehicles, but eVgo suggest one model for expanding the potential coverage area for recharging cars, even if it is currently limited to Houston and environs.

---

eVgo is clearly a commercial venture. Another approach to charging stations is municipal in nature:

The city introduced two electric-car charging stations Tuesday, the first of many sprouting up across Raleigh as electric and hybrid cars become more common. Officials showcased the recharging stations in front of City Hall on Hargett Street. A third station is scheduled to be installed near the convention center next week.

Right now, Raleigh’s effort could be considered, well, careful:

The recharging stations, with 9-foot cords, will provide free electricity, though drivers will need to pay the parking meter.

The parking spaces in front of City Hall are not reserved for drivers with electric cars, so anyone will be able to use them for now.

In other words, Raleigh doesn’t want to annoy anyone too much.

I keep calling these stations – so does the story - but both eVgo and Raleigh are providing fairly modest charging poles that can be put any number of places – eVgo even has a web page soliciting businesses and apartment complexes to host one or more.

The idea of a station may take hold – it’s a well-understood paradigm - but since cars have to sit awhile to be recharged, the parking spot idea might work better.

And where’s the nuclear pick-up? Well, as electric cars gain in  popularity, they will require more electricity – and some of that electricity ought to be as clean as the cars. Where isn’t there a nuclear pick-up?

Fill, er, charge her up! An eVgo charging station in Houston.

US Nuclear Performance – October 2010

It’s been awhile since we’ve highlighted our monthly nuclear performance report on the blog. Most of the time the nuclear units hum along at their usual pace so there’s not much to report. But worth mentioning from the latest issue is that nuclear generation in the US in 2010 could break its previous 2007 record:

Year-to-date 2010 nuclear generation is 0.4% higher than the same period in 2009. For 2010, nuclear generation was 670.0 billion kilowatt-hours compared to 667.2 bkWh for the same period in 2009 and 669.5 bkWh in 2007 (the record year for nuclear generation).

For October 2010, nuclear generation was 61.8 billion kilowatt-hours compared to 57.7 billion kWh in October 2009. The average capacity factor for October 2010 was 82.5% compared to 77.0% in October 2009.

For the 2010 fall refueling outage season, 15 units completed refueling while another eight are still shut down. Twenty-three nuclear reactors are expected to refuel during fall 2010 compared to 33 in fall 2009.

Average refueling outage durations for PWRs during fall 2010 (12 units) was 39 days compared to 29 days during the same period for BWRs (3 units).

For more stats on a unit by unit level, stop by and check out the rest of the report.

Reasons to Be Thankful

Shall Canada be thankful?

The government of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, announced plans to spend billions of dollars more on nuclear reactors, wind and solar projects and to eliminate coal plants by 2014.

This is consequential, as the story notes that Ontario generates a third of Canada’s electricity (largely, I guess, because it holds a third of the country’s population.)

Nuclear energy is to receive the largest chunk of capital spending at C$33 billion, followed by C$14 billion for wind power, C$9 billion for solar power and C$4.6 billion for hydro- electricity. The plan also marked C$12 billion for conservation, C$9 billion for transmission lines, C$4 billion for biomass, and C$1.88 billion for natural gas.

The goal here is to keep nuclear energy generation stable at about 50 percent of the total – Ontario has 10 plants currently and will increase to 12 under the plan - with renewable energy picking up for fossil fuels. The end result: the plan fulfills “the government’s pledge to eliminate 6.4 gigawatts of coal power in four years”.

Now, to be fair, this plan sets idealistic goals and the target for nuclear energy appears to depend on factors that will need to be resolved:

But as [Provincial Energy Minister Brad] Duguid acknowledged about the new nuclear plants, he’s not even sure whether the preferred buyer – Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. – will be around in its current form to make a sale.

The federal government has put it up for sale, and some buyers may not be interested in new construction.

But of course, they might well be interested. It just isn’t known yet – Ontario is signaling what it wants to happen and will help to have happen and that may be determinative in who buys the company and how it proceeds. So there are wait-and-see factors.

You can read more about the plan here.

---

Shall China be thankful?

The China Nuclear Energy Association has recommended the government adopt a 2020 target of 70 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity, but companies in the sector are pushing for more, association Vice-Chairman Zhao Chenkun told Reuters on Wednesday.

And that’s about all I could find about this. Many may well consider it enough, but I’ll follow up when more emerges.

---

And say, what about the United States?

U.S. nuclear production rose to a seven-week high on output gains at Progress Energy Inc.’s Robinson 2 reactor in South Carolina and Entergy Corp.’s FitzPatrick plant in New York, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report today showed.

Output from U.S. plants since Nov. 19 increased by 2,619 megawatts, or 3 percent, to 89,310 megawatts, or 88 percent of capacity, according to the report from the NRC and data compiled by Bloomberg. Twelve of 104 plants are offline.

Bloomburg provides a list of plants. Here’s a taste:

Exelon Corp. boosted its 1,112-megawatt Peach Bottom 3 reactor in Pennsylvania to 95 percent of capacity from 1 percent on Nov. 19 after crews replaced one of the unit’s transformers.

Peach Bottom 2, another unit at the plant located about 18 miles south of Lancaster, is at full capacity.

Southern Co. raised output at its 851-megawatt Farley 1 reactor in Alabama to 80 percent of capacity from 30 percent on Nov. 19. Another unit at the site, Farley 2, is operating at full power. The plant is located about 18 miles south of Dothan.

And it goes on like that. No holding back the cranberry sauce this Thanksgiving.

---

Travel safely, eat plentifully, appreciate your loved ones gratefully. And happy Thanksgiving.

It’s Good to Be the Queen

Because you get to do fun things like this:

Ground was broken yesterday on the UK's Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who used virtual reality to operate a digger.

And what might this freshly dug Centre do?

The new facility is intended to "help UK companies become global leaders in the production of components and systems for the new generation of nuclear power stations" said the University of Sheffield. The other main collaborators in the project are the University of Manchester, the government and Rolls-Royce as lead industrial partner.

Rolls-Royce again – see the post below for more on that company. But what about Queen Elizabeth? It turns out she’s been hanging around nuclear energy plants as long they’ve been in England. Here she is in 1956:

The Queen has opened the world's first full-scale nuclear power station, at Calder Hall in Cumberland.

A crowd of several thousand people gathered to watch the opening ceremony, which was also attended by scientists and statesmen from almost 40 different countries.

That event spurred considerable optimism:

The Lord Privy Seal, Richard Butler, described the event as "epoch-making".

He added, "It may be that after 1965 every new power station being built will be an atomic power station."

And if that had occurred, some of the larger conversations taking place today would be considerably muted. Certainly, the need for energy security would remain much the same – unless cars switched to flux capacitors – while concerns over global warming might be less urgent.

Or not. ‘What If’ is a fun game, with part of the fun being able to ignore all factors except the ones you want to include. The world would always be a better place if it were organized according to our personal interests – wouldn’t it?

Anyway, it remains a fun notion to think of the queen being there at the beginning of nuclear energy in England and still there to see it through to a new generation. I fully expect her to be there when it is her hologram running a virtual digging machine to build an avatar of a nuclear energy plant.

The Calder Hall plant. It operated until 2003, just shy of its 50th birthday.

The Stadium and the Turbines; Nuts in Germany

No problem with this:

The [Philadelphia] Eagles have contracted with SolarBlue, a renewable energy and energy conservation company based in Orlando, Fla., to install about 80 20-foot spiral-shaped wind turbines on the top rim of the stadium, affix 2,500 solar panels on the stadium's façade, and build a 7.6 megawatt biodiesel/natural gas cogeneration plant with monitoring and switching technology to operate the system.

After all, putting a nuclear energy plant at a sports stadium might well be considered overkill by the staunchest advocate – though the small reactor people might call foul on that – and it’s not as though nuclear is badly represented in Pennsylvania. It provides 35% of the electricity capacity there – second only to coal, at 48% – NEI has a fact sheet with a bunch of interesting factoids here.

I don’t know if or how much Lincoln Financial Field benefited from the nuclear presence, but it doesn’t really matter. This move is intended to send a message and engage the fans and it’s impossible to quibble with the net good of the undertaking.

Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie called the plan a "vital step towards energy independence."

I looked around for more context for that quote, since energy independence isn’t what’s happening here – nuclear and coal are both home-grown and lots of fans will still be driving their gas-powered cars to the stadium. Here we go:

“The Philadelphia Eagles are proud to take this vital step towards energy independence from fossil fuels by powering Lincoln Financial Field with wind, solar and dual-fuel energy sources,” said Jeffrey Lurie, the team's owner and CEO.  “This commitment builds upon our comprehensive environmental sustainability program, which includes energy and water conservation, waste reduction, recycling, composting, toxic chemical avoidance and reforestation. It underscores our strong belief that environmentally sensitive policies are consistent with sound business practices.”

Well, that makes better sense, even if nuclear energy doesn’t really fit the formulation. Regardless, they’re really all in on this – good for them – so let’s see if they take the next step and close their parking lots to encourage fans to use public transportation. (Which sounds snarky, but it’s logical and would do a lot of good.)

---

When one thinks of overreach in a social democracy, one assumes it would have to do with policy issues related to the so-called nanny state, such as the French protests over raising the retirement age from 62. But some German utilities are trying an argument against keeping the country’s nuclear plants open that  feels like capitalistic special pleading:

The recent amendments of the [German] Atomic Energy Act extending the operating times of the German nuclear power plants remain controversial. Several local utilities (Stadtwerke) are questioning whether the extension is compatible with EU law, and have lodged a complaint with the European Commission.

It’s why they’ve done this that is rather mind boggling:

The nuclear power plants were written off [as in a financial wrtie-off], hence they could produce energy at unbeatable prices, Johannes von Bergen, Managing Director of the municipal utility of Schwäbisch Hall (Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall) explained.

Well, yes, indeed they could – if you pay off the plant, there’s nothing left but running costs. That can mean a lot of extra profit and better prices for consumers. It’s a classic win-win outcome and exactly what you want to happen.

But not if you expected those plants to close and they don’t:

The nuclear power extension distorts competition to the detriment of the smaller power generating companies, managing director Achim Kötzle of Stadtwerke Tübingen told the regional television and radio station SWR. His company had invested in new capacities, relying on the phase-out timing in the old AtG [the German Atomic Energy Act].

Now, Germany does have a rather more fraught relationship with nuclear energy than is true in many other parts of the world. I can’t find much to explain this other than a Chernobyl hangover, but there it is. So an argument from an aggrieved utility against charging customers less may gain traction in such an environment. But that doesn’t make it less nuts.

Eagles stadium.

A Good Thing in Minnesota

A good thing?

Xcel applied to add 164 megawatts to the plant’s 1,100-megawatt power generating capacity in 2008. The MPUC approved the request the next year.

Maybe not:

[T]he move was challenged by the city of Red Wing and Prairie Island Indian Community. They argued that the extra capacity wasn’t needed, alternatives like hydropower weren’t given adequate consideration and that the increased power capacity would harm the surrounding communities and environments.

The Indian community is right next to the plant. But are these items legitimate? – they seem oddly miscellaneous and contradictory. After all, if the area doesn’t need more electricity then no one needed to look at hydro, either.

Anyway – back to a good thing:

The court [the state court of appeals, to be exact] said those claims were unsupported and affirmed the state’s approval…

Xcel, Prairie Island’s parent, still needs NRC approval, but this part is done. Good.
---

There are several stories today about growing American interest in participating in Armenia’s drive to build a new nuclear energy plant. Currently, the one operating plant, Metsamor, produces about 40 percent of Armenia’s electricity generation.

If you want a sense of how nuclear energy enhances energy security, Metsamor’s your go-to plant in the Caucasus. Closed in 1988 after an earthquake in the region, Armenia repaired and reopened the plant in 1993 when neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan blockaded Armenia and created electricity shortages. With Metsamor up and running, no imports were needed and so it has been since.

However, the plan has been to close it again once a new plant is up and running – which Armenia has to do before it is considered for European Union membership. The problem has been to get the new plant up and running.

And that brings us to today. The major takeaway is that the Russians remain the major partner here:

The Russian and Armenian governments set up late last year a joint venture tasked with building the plant's reactor. Armenian officials said other plant facilities might well be built by or receive equipment from Western nuclear-energy firms. They said equipment suppliers will be chosen in international tenders.

And that’s where the Americans find an opening:

The State Department hopes to gauge US private interest in funding Armenia’s new nuclear power station in the place of rusting, Soviet-era Metsamor.

“ We are interested in having U.S. companies participate [in the nuclear project,] if possible," Daniel Rosenblum, the State Department's Coordinator of US Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, told a November 16 press conference, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.

That’s not the most ringing endorsement imaginable. But consider:

The U.S. will allocate $44 [million] to Armenia in 2011, out of which around $20-22 [million] will be directed for the development of enterprises and improvement of competitiveness, while $8 [million] will be allocated for reforms in the social field, specifically, healthcare, Yeritsyan said.

Nothing about nuclear energy, but a lot about American interest in Armenia. Consider further:

Armenia is interested in boosting its trade and economic relations with the United States, Armenian economy minister Nerses Yeritsyan said today at the opening of the 19th meeting of Armenian-American intergovernmental commission in Yerevan.

This is the conference that brought in the $44 million. So the atmosphere for trade in nuclear services is certainly clear and sunny.

The Prairie Island plant.

Holes at the Elbow

Enthusiastic nuclear energy boosters are a good thing, but nobody’s more enthusiastic than when they have something to sell:

Nuclear is soaring and the sector has the wind at its back.  Energy costs are on the rise, nuclear power demand is going to grow, utility stocks are close to recent highs and the economy is no longer expected to slip back into the red.  There are several drivers, and several ETFs and major companies that are set to benefit.

ETFs are exchange-traded funds, which is your tip-off that this comes from a stock related site, in this case Investor Place.

Apparently, wild hyperbole is nothing new to stock touts, but it reminds me of when my father took me to Pimlico and a fellow outside the track was pitching a tip sheet containing “ten sure winners.” His jacket had holes at the elbows, but he had ten sure winners.

None of which is to say you shouldn’t invest in energy-related stocks, just that your own research will trump any hyped promises.

---

Presumably, any of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates can pursue nuclear energy on its own. Most attention up to now has focused on Abu Dhabi, but now Dubai has weighed in:

Dubai will meet 20 per cent of energy needs from nuclear energy and another 20 per cent from clean coal, Saeed Al Tayer, Vice-Chairman of the Supreme Energy Council, said on Wednesday at the launch of Dubai Global Energy Forum 2011.

Dubai has about 2.2 million people within its borders, so I wondered if plans had progressed far enough to determine what kind of plant the country had in mind. But nothing – too soon to tell. Currently, Dubai generates most of its electricity from imported natural gas, so energy security may be playing a part here, too.

Several stories, especially from gulf news sources, made very sure of their adjectives:

Al Tayer said clean coal and peaceful nuclear technology were the main options the Dubai government was considering, in an attempt to diversify energy resources.

And:

[Dubai’s Supreme Council of Energy] is also concerned with the generation and distribution of electricity for public consumption, as well as production of electricity from renewable sources, and generation of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, notably for electricity and desalination plants.

Non-peaceful uses wouldn’t power a light bulb, so “peaceful” here seems code for “not Iran.” Iran’s poor standing could easily discourage other gulf nations from pursuing anything that might be viewed as controversial, but Dubai and fellow UAE emirate Abu Dhabi have not shied away.

These countries need the electricity and they’re in a position to grow their generation while decreasing their carbon footprints – and they aim to do that, at least partially, with nuclear energy.

At Pimlico. It was named after a British pub (Olde Ben Pimlico’s Tavern) when it opened in 1870 in Baltimore. The colt Preakness won the first race held there, hence the modern Preakness Stakes. The 2007 Preakness attracted over 120,000 spectators, the largest crowd for a sporting event in Baltimore history.

On YouTube and Not on YouTube

As the post below reminds us, NEI has a thriving YouTube channel where anything regarding nuclear energy is neatly extracted from longer talks or press conferences for your viewing pleasure. Here’s White House Science Director John Holdren during the Q&A after his speech at MIT (our transcript):

I think for a whole variety of reasons the United States needs to stay at the cutting edge of nuclear technology. And in order for us to do that, it would be nice if we had a domestic nuclear industry; building nuclear power plants in this country. I would like to see that happen. Steve Chu would like to see it happen. The President would like to see it happen.

Not least, because if I didn't make that clear enough in this talk, although nuclear energy is not a panacea for the climate problem, there is no panacea, it could make a significant contribution if we could make it expandable again. It would be easier to solve the climate problem with the help of nuclear energy than without it.

And I think it's in our interest therefore to help ourselves and help the rest of the world figure out how to get that done; with the appropriate technologies, the appropriate training, the appropriate regulations.

And:

The Unites States is not yet in any danger of being left in the dust in this domain. But we've got to pay attention. We've got to make the investments. We've got to do what needs to be done to create the environment in which this technology becomes expandable again.

You can watch the whole thing here.

---

But all right, just as all your friends have not friended you on Facebook, so it is that every speech doesn’t make it onto YouTube.

For example, Thomas Farrell, Chairman, President and CEO of Dominion Energy, gave an interesting speech to the Harvard Business School Energy and Environment Club’s Energy Symposium 2010 in which he lays out his views on energy policy - very timely given the recent election. It’s a long talk and well worth reading but here’s a bit of the take-away:

Ultimately, I believe, we must center our energy policy on the concept of security – the most meaningful principle, as it recognizes the interdependencies, scale and complexity of the energy supply system.

Energy security is rooted in a number of different things:

Supportive legislation and regulation that provide access to and responsible development of our domestic resource base:  natural gas and oil, both onshore and offshore, as well as coal and uranium.

A modernized, smart power grid – empowering consumers and moving electricity reliably and efficiently to population centers where it is needed most. Here is where conservation may yet have a chance to promote reduced energy demand, lower costs and protect environmental quality.

Robust international relations and trade that help maintain stability and long-term economic growth.

And perhaps most important of all, reliance on the full range of energy sources at our disposal.

Energy diversity is really the key to America’s energy security.  As any decent financial adviser will tell you, the best hedge against a market is a diversified portfolio.   You knew that – even before you came to HBS [Harvard business School].  The same is true for energy.

Thomas Farrell.

Nuclear Energy Could Be Key to Energy Compromise

At a press conference at NEI, Alex Flint, senior vice president for government affairs at NEI, discussed some priorities for the upcoming Congress. The question-and-answer session with reporters focused on several key issues affecting the nuclear energy industry: a clean energy standard, DOE loan guarantees, EPA water regulations, the Nuclear Waste Fund fee and a federal corporation for managing used nuclear fuel. A recurring theme was that nuclear energy could be an area for bipartisan cooperation on energy legislation in the new Congress. Original reporting from NEI’s Nuclear Energy Overview follows: 

Nuclear energy might hold the key to a compromise on energy legislation in the next session of Congress, an NEI executive told reporters during a briefing on the impact of the midterm elections on the nuclear energy industry.

“Nuclear energy is at the center of the debate about energy policy,” said Alex Flint. “We view it as the middle ground on which both parties can compromise and, if they’re going to pursue energy legislation, one of the foundation elements in that policy.”

Flint’s remarks echoed statements last week by President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the presumptive House speaker, citing nuclear energy as common ground which both Democrats and Republicans could seek in crafting energy policy.

A clean energy standard might garner broader bipartisan support and would include nuclear energy and other low-carbon options in addition to renewable energy sources, Flint said. 

“If a renewable energy standard is expanded into a clean energy standard, we do believe that the technologies have to be evaluated based upon their ability to contribute to the objectives,” Flint said. “As a result, we need to expand the suite of technologies that qualify for a clean energy standard.”

Asked about the potential for greater fiscal austerity in the new Congress, Flint said that there are ways for Congress to offer incentives that do not have a large budgetary impact. 

“Clearly, there is a concern about spending money, but the issue becomes what is the most effective way of spending money? Loan guarantees provide tremendous leveraging opportunity,” Flint said. “For our industry, the applicant pays the costs to the government, yet it encourages behavior that would not otherwise occur. Loan guarantees are a very effective way for government to affect policy at a minimal cost.”

Flint said that effective implementation of the DOE loan guarantee program is a top policy priority for the industry.

“Can DOE, working in conjunction with OMB [the Office of Management and Budget], effectively implement that program?” Flint asked. “We’ve seen limited success with the Vogtle reactors and the Eagle Rock enrichment plant, but clearly there are frustrations that others are experiencing.”

Flint said that the method for determining the fees that companies must pay to access the loan guarantees for nuclear energy projects is critical to the success of the program.

“Nuclear loan guarantee applications are each unique and the numbers are sufficiently large that we think each application needs to be evaluated individually. It’s a different approach than OMB has been taking to date, but if we could get that done, the program would be much more effective.”

Flint said the industry is closely monitoring a proposed rulemaking by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement phase II, Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, expected as early as February 2011. The proposal will determine what actions may be necessary at more than 400 power plants to protect the environment from the possible effects of cooling water intake structures.

“There are a lot of regulations coming out of EPA that affect electricity generation. Probably the most impactful is 316(b),” Flint said. “Our view is that you can’t have a blanket policy on cooling water intake structures—there needs to be site-specific consideration. There are a lot of variables that will affect what the best technology is for each site.”

Asked whether NEI would continue to pursue the suspension of fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund, Flint said the issue is an industry priority.

“It’s something we’re going to be pursuing quite strongly. We are obligated to pay for a program that is not functioning,” Flint said. “Our view is that the government should be implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.”

Flint said that in addition to suspending the Nuclear Waste Fund fee, Congress should create a federal corporation to provide more efficient management of the federal government’s used nuclear fuel management program. “A Fed Corp-type organization is the most appropriate structure for pursuing the used fuel program,” Flint said. “They are really two issues: what is the program—and how to implement the program.”

Regardless of the path forward, nuclear energy is seeing increased support from both sides of the aisle, Flint noted. “We have seen a substantial increase in support for nuclear energy over the last several years,” said Flint. “We find ourselves now with broad-based political support from both parties.”

The entire press conference is at NEI’s YouTube site in five parts: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V. 

When Only a Rolls Will Do

Something you might not know:

Rolls-Royce has signed a contract with China Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (CNPEC) to provide six Rod Control Systems (RCS) and eight Neutron Instrumentation Systems (NIS). These systems will operate with the new Chinese designed CPR1000 nuclear power plants and will be manufactured in the Rolls-Royce facility in Meylan, France.

I hadn’t seen Rolls-Royce mentioned in a story in a long time, so thought it might be a good idea to see what it’s up to these days.

Following the global acquisition of ODIM ASA, Rolls-Royce is in the process of fully integrating ODIM Numet - the nuclear division of ODIM ASA, into its overall product and service offering to its commercial nuclear customers.

So now you know. (Well, okay, that’s a little obtuse even for a press release. ODIM Numet is an engineering and fabrication firm focused on the CANDU reactor. Buying it broadens the kinds of reactors for which Rolls-Royce can build parts.)

The Rolls-Royce site is actually interesting to browse through. it explains its broad range of offerings very clearly (the press release above an exception) and you can learn a lot about the work of nuclear plant suppliers.

---

It could be worse:

Despite efforts to expand the perception of the IAEA as simply the world's "nuclear watchdog," the agency's role in nuclear verification has garnered the greatest attention amongst UN member states.

And for good reason, given the essential geopolitical importance of the role. I get that the IAEA does a lot more:

The label "does not do justice to our extensive activities in other areas, especially in nuclear energy, nuclear science and applications, and technical cooperation," said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano as he presented his first report to the UN General Assembly.

But it’s not a pejorative “label” and the IAEA can be sure any country wanting its services will know what it does. This can’t be the biggest fish in the IAEA fry pan. Let’s assume Amano got caught by a pesky reporter on a particularly sour morning.

---

Activists rappelled down from a high bridge, broke through police lines and chained themselves to German train tracks Sunday, trying to halt a shipment of nuclear waste as they protested Chancellor Angela Merkel's plans to keep using nuclear energy.

German activists can be nothing if not demonstrative:

Some protesters poured flammable liquid on a police vehicle and set it alight.

Feels very 1969, doesn’t it? We’ve followed the tortuous story of Germany deciding to keep its nuclear plants operating in the face of no alternative when it comes to keeping its carbon emissions low. The specific event being protested is less important than that decision. Regardless, all the excitement happened near or on those train tracks.

Police used water cannons and pepper spray and wrestled with activists to break up the protest, but some still reached the rail line.

That sounds like 1969, too, unfortunately.

But don’t look over here for a mighty tut-tut. If some Germans want to protest nuclear energy, power to them – even atomic power. How effective such a protest is depends on a lot of factors – sometimes, it leads to conciliary statements, sometimes to stiffened spines – but this is another country’s issue and will be worked out to suit it.

The story doesn’t really finish – it doesn’t tell if the train was halted. CNN finishes it up:

[Nicole Ramrath of the Lueneburg police] described the protests overnight as "peaceful." About 3,500 protesters sat on the tracks, and police asked each person individually whether they would like to move and whether they would then leave the site, she said.

The majority dispersed, but several hundred protesters had to be carried off the track and kept in an outdoor detention area to keep them from returning, Ramrath said.

Consequently:

A train carrying nuclear waste in Germany is back on the move Monday after thousands of protesters blocked the track by sitting on it.

Another story said it was about 14 hours late.

An ongoing story, no doubt – a train with many boxcars.

At the protest. I can’t quite read the words on the back of those shirts – maybe it’s just the name of the group.

Safety Culture on the Frontline

Last week the PBS series Frontline took on the safety culture of BP. Although titled, "The Spill", and ostensibly focused on the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the 54 minute expose dwelt almost entirely on the history of significant events at BP's mainland American facilities. Using bits of the backstory on the 2006 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery which killed 15 people, a 2006 leak from an Alaskan pipeline that spilled more than 206,000 gallons of oil, and the 2007 swamping of the Thunderhorse oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, Frontline portrays BP as taking risks other companies thought unreasonable and putting cost-cutting ahead of safety. Frontline makes it appear that Deepwater Horizon was the inevitable result of putting production before safety.

Some online comments about the Frontline documentary question the balance and accuracy of the presentation. We'll leave that to others to decide, but take the appearance of the Frontline documentary to reflect media interest in the culture of the oil industry that rose sharply with Deepwater Horizon last spring.

The U.S. nuclear industry has dealt with similar questions. Since the founding of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) in 1979, the industry has recognized its obligation to strive for excellence - a standard higher than mere compliance with regulations. This striving has produced remarkable results: U.S. nuclear plants are demonstrably safer and more productive today than they were before INPO was formed. Even so, the industry continues to learn from its difficulties, such as the 2002 near-miss at the Davis-Besse plant.

In 2002, Davis-Besse brought attention to nuclear safety culture in the same way that Deepwater Horizon has brought attention to the oil industry's safety culture this year. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the issue came to a head in a May 2004 oversight hearing in which Senator George Voinovich (D-OH) asked tough questions about safety culture at Davis-Besse. Since that time, the NRC, NEI and INPO have worked to delineate the features of a sound nuclear safety culture and determine what each organization should do to promote it. Last August, the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Commission heard testimony from INPO's CEO, Jim Ellis, on some of the insights and lessons that the oil industry can take from the nuclear industry's experience in this area. In a November 2 posting, the New York Times Green blog shared more recent thinking on this subject from Interior Secretary Salazaar.

In the past year, the nuclear industry has been pilot-testing a process for managing safety culture. That process is described in a draft NEI document, NEI 09-07, "Fostering a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture." (NEI 09-07 is available through NRC's ADAMS public document system.)

The challenge in monitoring and managing safety culture is seeing the faint signals of emerging problems amidst the normal noise of a large, productive organization. In high-performing organizations, the faint signals may include subtle patterns linking seemingly unrelated equipment failures or human errors; anecdotal information; or perceptions and attitudes reflected in employee survey data, for example. NEI 09-07 describes a systematic way to examine this disparate data by having management step back periodically from their other daily activities and review the normal noise with a "safety culture filter". Evidence from the pilot program suggests this approach is yielding helpful insights for participants. The power reactor pilot program is expected to be completed in the first half of 2011.

We hope that media interest like that indicated by the Frontline documentary encourages improvements in safety culture throughout all high-performance industries. As shown by Mr. Ellis' testimony last August and other contacts between the nuclear and oil industries, we know that the nuclear industry will do all it can to share lessons learned in the pursuit of excellence with other industries eager to learn as well.

The Election and Nuclear Energy

There are many post-election news stories that try to explain what the new dynamic in Congress and between Congress and President Obama means for various policies. Energy policy and nuclear energy have not been left out of consideration.

Here’s the New York Times:

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the presumed new House Speaker, may have already etched out the blueprints for a GOP energy bill with the "American Energy Act." That legislation, which he introduced last year, calls for ramping up nuclear energy and offshore drilling as well as creating incentives for renewable energy.

But the Times’ sources think that Republicans’ disdain for large bills will favor “small ball” bills that tackle aspects of an issue, in this case energy and climate change, rather than the whole issue at once:

If comprehensive climate bills -- like the one current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed through two years ago -- are the way of the past, some think the Republican path forward may be going "small ball."

Jim Collura, a former staffer for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (R), thinks Boehner will dispense with thousand-page bills in favor of piecemeal moves, like a stand-alone bill for clean energy incentives or a bipartisan renewable electricity standard.

And of course, there are bills from both sides of the aisle that zero in on nuclear energy. These may find new life in Congress.

---

Think Progress notes that half the incoming group of Republicans do not think global warming is occurring (or, if it is, that human activity is not exacerbating it). But that means half do think it is occurring and requires action. Additionally, of course, a number of members who retained their seats on both sides of the aisle also consider it an important issue:

– Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R- Florida): “Global warming is real and man-made.”

– Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.): “The science behind climate change is sound.”

– Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Penn.): “Congressman Gerlach believes we have a responsibility as legislators and citizens to reduce our imprint on the Earth and reverse the effects of science-based climate change for both current and future generations.”

– Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia): “I believe that global warming is real. The National Academy of Sciences has presented evidence that the Earth’s surface is warming because of human activities, including increased worldwide industrial development, over the past several decades.”

Nuclear energy, of course, answers to this issue. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is quite explicit about this:

"Through a greater commitment to nuclear, we have a unique opportunity to cut greenhouse gases, provide stability to our electrical supply and create jobs," Upton told Reuters.

All true. And although President Obama will be proceeding with a different governing dynamic, his consistent support for nuclear energy could well increase as a way to find common ground.

“There’s been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases,” Obama said during a speech the day after the midterm elections. “Is that an area where we can move forward?”

We vote yes.

---

All elections provide elation and hope for some and despair for others. That’s as true for those in the nuclear energy sphere as in any other. But I prefer hope, especially as the fluid nature of American politics makes it very difficult to really make sure predictions.

In that vein, let’s let Alternate Energy Holding’s CEO Don Gillispie have the last word:

When the history of nuclear power is written, Nov. 2, 2010 will be a major turning point for the industry," said Gillispie. "It will mark the beginning of a dramatic resurgence for nuclear power."

He may be right, he may be wrong. But there’s no quibbling with his right to hope and elation.

A weapon that comes down as still; As snowflakes fall upon the sod;
But executes a freeman's will; As lightning does the will of God;
And from its force nor doors nor locks; Can shield you,'tis the ballot-box.

By John Pierpont (1785-1866)

The Collective Will to Survive

Europe has a plan for used nuclear fuel:

EU energy commissioner Günther Oettinger has urged member states to bury radioactive nuclear waste, saying burial is the safest form of disposal.

The draft directive on nuclear waste says geographical storage is "the safest and most sustainable" option for disposing of spent fuel.

The U.S. is currently working on the issue of used nuclear fuel via the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which is due to report its findings late next year.

Santiago San Antonio, director general of Foratom, the Brussels-based organization that represents the European nuclear energy industry, points out in the article that used nuclear fuel is already safely handled and adds:

"We are particularly pleased that the directive acknowledges the fact that there is a world-wide scientific and technical consensus that deep geological disposal of high-level waste which has been proven by over 30 years of research, represents the safest and most sustainable option."

Safest and most sustainable might be open to some debate but safe and sustainable? No debate there.

---

Armenia and UAE?

The UAE is interested in cooperation with Armenia in nuclear energy, Foreign Trade Minister Sheikha Lubna al Qasimi said in Yerevan.

This decision appeared to be unexpected for the Armenian side. Head of the Armenian Development Agency Robert Harutunyan said that he is not aware of the details but supposes that the point is scientific and technical cooperation in nuclear energy.

As happens, Armenia has a nuclear energy plant planned, but still, this just qualifies as – odd.

---

The Philippines has opened the Nuclear Power Forum Philippines 2010. The country has a practical need for more electricity (“rotating 3-hour outages in Metro Manila, the country’s political and economic centre,”), so the road forward is clear enough:

Accordingly, the Philippine Energy Plan 2007-2014 indicates room for the existing Bataan Nuclear Power Plant as well as four more nuclear plants, the earliest to be commissioned by 2015.

And to hear the Filipinos tell it, the response has been terrific:

Investor interest is pouring in. “We’re overwhelmed by the response, in a really good way,” explains Frank Mercado, Director at the Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics, the forum host. “Indeed Southeast Asia is now an important emerging market for the nuclear industry worldwide.”

---

Over at the Guardian, the often interesting if sometimes moonbatty English newspaper, a feature allows readers to post tough energy questions to a panel of experts. Nuclear energy does not usually get a very fair hearing at The Guardian, but I found an answer to a question about used nuclear fuel rather charming and on point, though not about used nuclear fuel.

Tanzania’s Pius Yasebasi Ng'wandu does not have a nuclear energy background; he was his country’s Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education. In most particulars, Ng’wandu probably should not have answered the question – he just doesn’t know enough about the subject.

But he does say this:

We must move away from the self inflicted fear of nuclear energy. Let us combine knowledge, technology and the collective will to survive. Fifty years after President Eisenhower's speech on "atoms for peace", we must build the will to tame these atoms for peace and development.

I think the atoms have been sufficiently tamed, but there’s no doubting the sentiment. Ng’wandu is a policymaker, so he’s clearly focused on the potential of nuclear energy in his country and continent.

Off in the distance. Armenia’s Metsamore Armenian Nuclear Power Plant. Armenia planned to shut it down in 2004, but decided against it when it could not find a way to replace the 40% of the country’s electricity generation supplied by the plant.