Monday, October 31, 2005

Why the Renewed Interest in Nuclear Energy?

One of the main drivers behind the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act was the inclusion of incentives (investment protection, production tax credits and the like) electric utilities said were necessary to spur the building of new baseload generating capacity like coal and nuclear.

If the activity since the bill was signed into law this past August is any indication, the law is working exactly as intended. Accounting for the announcements made by Duke Energy and Constellation Energy last week, there are now 10 distinct projects underway investigating the possibility of new nuclear build.

But the incentives in EPACT 2005 are only part of the story. Another piece of the puzzle is the incredible volatility we're seeing around the world in natural gas markets. As our President and CEO Skip Bowman put it last week in a speech in Savannah, Georgia:

Even before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, oil and natural gas prices were increasing and our energy supply and delivery infrastructure already were stressed. The hurricanes pushed that infrastructure beyond the breaking point.

Through the summer of 2005, natural gas prices were in the $6 to $7 per million BTU range—high by any standards. But last week, natural gas at one of the major trading hubs in Texas was over $13 per million BTU, and the 12-month forecast on the New York Mercantile Exchange was above $11.

In the Gulf of Mexico, 50 percent of natural gas production and 60 percent of oil production is still shut down—either because of damage to offshore platforms or to onshore infrastructure. The Gulf of Mexico accounts for approximately one-quarter of U.S. natural gas production and roughly 30 percent of oil production. Most experts believe production will not be restored fully until the end of the first quarter of 2006, at the earliest. There’s little prospect of quick relief from the pressure on natural gas supply and prices.

Louisiana and Mississippi have suffered greatly, to be sure, but our entire nation will suffer economic damage because of higher energy prices.

In those parts of the country that depend heavily on natural gas for electric power generation—Florida, the West Coast, New England—we can expect significant increases in electricity prices. One Florida electric utility reported last week that its fuel costs have increased by about one-third this year. This, in turn, will increase the cost of electricity to commercial and industrial users by 25 to 40 percent.
For many Americans, it looks to be an expensive Winter, as consumers who use natural gas to heat their homes will have to compete for access to a constrained supply with utilities who use natural gas to generate electricity as well as industrial users who use natural gas as a feedstock.

But it isn't only natural gas prices that are roiling markets. We've seen similar price volatility in coal markets since the late 1990s and some coal prices have doubled in the last 24 months. And there are other hidden costs as well. In emission trading markets, allowances for SO2 or sulfur dioxide have quadrupled in just 26 months between December 2003 and October 2005.

If you had to put the reasons for the revival of interest in nuclear energy on the back of an index card, it would read as follows:

1) Nuclear energy produces large amounts of baseload (24x7) power at competitive prices -- unlike many renewable sources of energy that simply can't provide the heavy lift that nuclear provides on the electric grid;

2) Because fuel costs make up such a small share of nuclear production costs, nuclear energy provides tremendous forward price stability -- an attribute with significant value in a volatile commodity market;

3) Because of its emission-free character, nuclear energy has a significant clean air compliance value -- something that will only become more important in what is sure to become a carbon constrained world.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

U.K. Nuclear Update

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair continues to kick up dust in his home country over the issue of new nuclear build. Looking ahead to this week's inaugural meeting of the Gleneagles Dialogue between the G8 and the emerging industrial nations of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, Blair sounded the warning again over the consequences of global warming in the pages of the Guardian:

That's why Tuesday's meeting matters. It will focus on what is needed to make the transition to a low carbon economy. We need to see how the existing energy technologies we have such as wind, solar and - yes - nuclear, together with new technologies such as fuel cells and carbon capture and storage, can generate the low carbon power the world needs.
UPDATE: Some other thoughts from U.K.-based blogs Anglesey Energy and Deed.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Sproat Nomination Hearing This Week

On Thursday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a nomination hearing for Edward (Ward) Sproat, the Bush administration's choice to head the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The hearing will take place at 2:30 p.m. in 366 Dirksen.

Technorati tags: , ,

Sunday, October 30, 2005

German Nuclear Update

It doesn't look like German Chancellor-designate Angela Merkel is going to back down on her campaign promise to overturn that nation's planned phaseout of nuclear energy by 2020.

For our previous posts on what's happening in the German nuclear business, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

More Bloggers For Nuclear Energy

Meet Synthstuff and Bacon's Rebellion.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Friday, October 28, 2005

Nuclear Energy Industry Transitions

David Amerine is the new senior vice president of Parsons’ infrastructure and technology group. Amerine comes to Parsons from CH2M Hill’s nuclear business group, where he was executive vice president and deputy general manager.

William Barnet III is the newest member of Duke Energy's board of directors. He was elected to a seat on Oct. 25 and will serve on the board's audit and nuclear oversight committees. Barnet is the may of Spartanburg, S.C., and the chairman, president and chief executive officer of the Barnet Co. Inc., a real estate and investment firm.

Canada’s Natural Resources Department has proposed Robert Van Adel for reappointment as president and chief executive officer of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Van Adel has held the position since February 2001. The department will refer the proposal to a parliamentary committee for review. Van Adel is an NEI board member.

David Miller has been elected president and chief operating officer of Strathmore Minerals Corp., and president and chief executive officer of its U.S. subsidiary, Strathmore Resources Ltd. Miller previously was the company’s chief geologist.

American Electric Power has elected Linda Goodspeed to its board of directors. Goodspeed is executive vice president and chief technology officer for Lennox International Inc. She will serve on the audit, nuclear oversight and policy committees.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

The BU Trustee Scholarship Competition

The author of Something Clever is a female high school student from Seattle, Washington who has been accepted at Boston University. She just found out that she's been asked to apply for the school's Trustee Scholar program that would qualify her for full tuition and room and board for all four years.

Wow, that's a heck of an opportunity. But to win the scholarship, she going to have to write a 600-word essay. And here's topic#1:

Boston University Trustee Scholars are encouraged to develop well-informed and well-reasoned views of important political, social, and artistic issues. We try to select students who have a sense of how to present persuasive arguments in support of their views. With that in mind, write an essay of no more than 600 words responding to one of the following statements:

1. Electricity generation via nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce a small volume of very dangerous radioactive waste.
What a coincidence! Now, if our young friend would like some help researching this paper, feel free to explore our blog, or check out our main Web page.

And good luck. And once you get to BU, please say hello to Mr. Eruzione.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Taking a Closer Look at the AP-1000

Green Car Congress is taking a detailed look at the design of the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor, the reactor that Duke Energy intends to use for its upcoming COL application for a twin-reactor nuclear power plant somewhere in its current service area.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , AP-1000

More Strong Polling Results In Canada

New survey results in Ontario conclude that a vast majority - 74 percent - of Toronto residents support nuclear power. This comes on the heels of an Ontario poll with similar results earlier this week.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

More Reaction to ABC News' 'Loose Nukes'

In an op-ed in the Indy Star this week, Lefteri Tsoukalas - head of the nuclear engineering department at Purdue University - condemns ABC News for "cynically exploiting people's instinctive fear of nuclear energy by misrepresenting both the threat from, and the nature of, research reactors such as the one for which I am responsible at Purdue University."

ABC sent college students who were working as journalism interns to a number of university reactor facilities, including the one at Purdue. The idea was to see whether they could get into the facilities and assess security measures.

The interns had no trouble gaining access because we welcome visitors to the reactor. In fact, our Web site and printed literature invite the public to schedule tours, which are conducted by staff trained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's security measures. The ABC interns saw what any visitor would see. If they had identified themselves as investigative journalists, they would have been given the same tour and the same information.

By the time they had been to two universities, the interns' behavior had given them away, and all the subsequent sites they visited knew their purpose. They still were given escorted tours. Yet ABC's report maintained the fiction that the interns had duped those responsible for security at each of the reactors. It also accepted at face value evaluations of security measures that the interns were not qualified to make.

The network's premise was that the American public is threatened by the ease with which research reactors can be accessed. This is patently false.
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Constellation Announces COL Application

From the wire:

Constellation Energy (NYSE: CEG) today announced that it intends to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a combined construction and operating license (COL). This is the first step in a multi-phase process that could ultimately lead to the development and deployment of its first nuclear power plant in more than 30 years. Sites under consideration include the company's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Southern Maryland and the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in upstate New York. Final site selection is expected by early next year.

"With this announcement, Constellation Energy confirms its position as one of the leaders in bringing new nuclear power in this country one step closer to reality," said Michael J. Wallace, executive vice president for Constellation Energy. "Our decision to file with the NRC at this time is consistent with our disciplined value-driven approach to nuclear power, and our recently announced partnership with AREVA, Inc. and the formation of UniStar Nuclear. But for passage and enactment of the Energy Policy Act, we would not be making this announcement today. We appreciate the support and leadership demonstrated by the Administration and Congress on this issue."
More great news. Announcements like this one are exactly why I joined up with the nuclear energy industry.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Another Strike Against the "No Solutions Gang"

After reading Stewart Brand's Environmental Heresies, Richard Sprague wrote this about the environmental movement:

Today's Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others are so anti-Republican that they are turning off mainstream people who are otherwise sympathetic to what's happening to the earth. Smart environmental organizations are already working to show their appeal to progressives on the right as well as the center-left.
Sounds like another strike against the "No Solutions Gang."

UPDATE: Click here for more from Pat Cleary.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

German Nuclear Update

This morning on NPR, Rachel Martin took a look at the energy situation in Germany (Real Player or Windows Media required), where the country is caught between its obligations to cut CO2 emissions under the Kyoto protocols, a plan to close nuclear power stations, and growing fears concerning overdependence on natural gas supplied from Russia.

For our previous posts on Germany's dillema, click here, here and here.

UPDATE: More from Reuters.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

France Shelves Plans for AREVA Stock Sale

From Forbes.com:

A sale of shares in state-owned Aeroports de Paris will go ahead but there are no plans to offer a stake in nuclear energy group Areva by 2007, Dominique Villepin, the prime minister, announced at a news conference...

On Areva, the prime minister said: 'In a sector as strategic as the provision of fission materials, the enrichment and treatment of nuclear waste, state control must provide the necessary guarantees to our citizens as well as to our foreign clients.

'We understand that under these conditions, regarding Areva, the opening up to private capital is not one of the projects of my government,' he said.
Technorati tags: , , ,

Stat Pack: EIA’s Annual Energy Review 2004 (Part 4)

This week, our continuing series on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Review (AER) looks at natural gas and coal.

Natural Gas

The AER does a great job showing how energy is produced and used with informative flow diagrams. Here is a flow diagram for natural gas. Please note that all figures are in trillions of cubic feet:


For definitions of the processes listed in this diagram, click here. Natural gas is a very versatile fuel, and is consumed in a variety of ways: Residential – 22%, Commercial – 13%, Industrial – 38%, Transportation – 3% and Electric Power – 24%.

Only 15% of natural gas consumed in the U.S. is imported, compared with 65% of oil. 85% of the natural gas imported to the U.S. comes from Canada.

But while natural gas is a versatile fuel, it could also be argued that America has become overreliant on its use.

Since 1992, the electric industry has built over 270,000 megawatts of new natural gas-fired generating capacity. In so doing, we placed unsustainable demands on natural gas supply, and exposed consumers of natural gas, and of electricity from natural gas, to punishing price volatility.

But the problems don't stop there. As NEI's President and CEO, Skip Bowman said in a speech last night in Augusta, Georgia, Hurricane's Katrina and Rita have done vast damage to the nation's natural gas supply and delivery infrastructure:

In the Gulf of Mexico, 50 percent of natural gas production and 60 percent of oil production is still shut down — either because of damage to offshore platforms or to onshore infrastructure. The Gulf of Mexico accounts for approximately one-quarter of U.S. natural gas production and roughly 30 percent of oil production. Most experts believe production will not be fully restored until the end of the first quarter of 2006, at the earliest. There’s little prospect of quick relief from the pressure on natural gas supply and prices.

Louisiana and Mississippi have suffered greatly, to be sure, but our entire nation will suffer economic damage because of higher energy prices.

In those parts of the country that depend heavily on natural gas for electric power generation — Florida, the West Coast, New England — we can expect significant increases in electricity prices. One Florida electric utility reported last week that its fuel costs have increased by about one-third this year. This, in turn, will increase the cost of electricity to commercial and industrial users by 25 to 40 percent.

Electric utilities in those parts of the country may well find themselves squeezed between rising fuel costs and state regulators trying to protect consumers from the impact of higher prices. Wall Street is already concerned about the potential for stress on utilities’ cash flow, leading to declining credit quality.

Other industries that depend heavily on natural gas, either as a fuel or a feedstock, will suffer, too — chemicals, plastics, packaging, steel, automobile manufacturing. Wall Street is already warning investors away from these sectors. Some were reeling even before Katrina and Rita drove energy prices higher. The U.S. chemical industry has shut down more than a dozen major U.S. manufacturing facilities in the last two years because of high natural gas prices and moved that production overseas. That’s more than 100,000 jobs lost.
In 2004, natural gas prices were at $5.49 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) at the wellhead. By September 2005, natural gas prices at the Henry Hub were about $12/mcf. Earlier this week, the price reached almost $14/mcf.

Coal

On one of my favorite television shows, The West Wing, Leo McGarry said the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and he (or at least the show's writers) couldn't have been more right. Coal is abundant and affordable in the U.S. and the vast majority is used to generate 50% of the nation's electricity.


Since 1975, coal prices have been steadily declining and in 2004 were at $19.85 per short ton.

Together, coal and nuclear energy provide tremendous forward price stability in U.S. electricity markets. Thanks to that forward price stability, retail electricity rates haven't been wracked with the sort of volatility we've seen at the gas pump over the past few months. And without the stability that coal and nuclear provide to retail electricity markets, the impact of the disruption to the nation's natural gas supply caused by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina would be far more dire.

For more information on electricity, stay tuned for the next Stat Pack. For previous Stat Pack’s on the AER click here, here and here.

UPDATE: More from the NAM Blog on natural gas.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Survey Says: Ontarians Support Nuclear

A majority of Ontarians support commercial nuclear power, according to a recent survey.

Although 60% of those surveyed said they prefer hydroelectric power, 54% responded that they back nuclear energy as part of the mix.

"The theme you see here is that the public understands that despite their preference, they can't rely on hydro alone -- at least at this stage in the game," said Leger Marketing associate vice-president Craig Worden.

"It's like a recipe and there needs to be a mix. They support nuclear being an ingredient in that mix."
The poll comes after Bruce Power's announcement last week that it plans to restart its Bruce A 1 and 2 reactors in Kincardine, Ont., which have been idle since 1997. The restart plan depends on a $3.6 billion deal between Bruce Power and the province of Ontario. The plan also includes refurbishment of two other Bruce A reactors over the next decade at the Kincardine site, about 150 miles northwest of Toronto.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Duke Power Announces COL for Two New Reactors

Just off the wire:

Duke Power confirmed today it is preparing a combined construction and operating license (COL) application for new nuclear generation. The application is for two Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) reactors at a site to be named
following the conclusion of its current site selection study.

Pursuit of the COL application, which is expected to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission within the next 24-30 months, is part of the company's long-term generation planning process, and will allow Duke Power to keep new nuclear generation as an option for meeting its customers' future energy needs.

"Our employees have proven that nuclear generation can provide safe, reliable and cost-effective electricity for our customers," said Brew Barron, Duke Power chief nuclear officer. "Preparing this application provides us the option to continue using a diverse fuel mix in the future."

Duke Power's selection of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design allows the company to rely on proven, safe nuclear technology and progressive innovation as it considers a new nuclear power plant. The AP1000 design is based on the same Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology that has achieved thousands of successful reactor-years of operation throughout the world.

Westinghouse PWR technology is currently in use at the Duke Power-operated McGuire and Catawba nuclear stations.

Westinghouse is partnering with The Shaw Group Inc., a global engineering, design, construction and operations firm, on engineering work for this project.
Duke does it again. Amazing. More later.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Correcting Misleading Comments by an Anti-nuclear Extremist

In a comment to a post below, Paul Gunter of the extremist antinuclear organization NIRS, completely mischaracterized the reasons behind and the effects of shutting down plants prior to a hurricane. A very knowledgeable colleague of mine, Howard Shaffer, who spent many years working as a systems engineer and who has tangled with Gunter previously, sent me this explanation:

If the grid is lost suddenly, a plant will scram and go on to the diesel generators, as designed and tested. Emergancy Core Cooling is not needed, since there is no leak. This feature is by design choice. It is possible to design nuclear power plants, even the large ones, to have a loss of the grid, and keep running to restart the grid. This makes for a more complicated and expensive design, since when the grid is lost, and the plant is at full load, and the plant is to keep running, the 4.5 million horsepower must go somewhere for a few seconds until reactor power is cut back. A design like this is not optimum in the whole grid system, since other types of plants can be and obviously are designed for black start and reenergizing the grid. Hydro plants are ideal for this. I started up Ludington Pumped storage in Michigan, which was designed to do this. We tested it to prove it could, and it was made an annual drill for the Operators.

As I recall, Vermont Yankee was originally designed and built to take a loss of the grid at full power, (full load reject) but this capability was dropped, I think based on upgraded reactor analytical results. The steam hardware was not removed, but of course the Reactor Protection system was made to scram on full load reject.

Plants are shut down in advance of anticipated grid loss (as from a hurricane) because of the conservative operational philosophy of never depending on Safety Systems to do a function that can be done without them.

The statement is completely mixed up when Gunter talks about operating off the grid for "Backup and Safety Systems" When Safety Systems are needed, the reactor is shut down, so it won't be making electric power. Conservative design assumes loss of the grid at the same time - i.e. the scram of the reactor and subsequent trip of the generator CAUSED the loss of the grid. Thus there is an emergency power supply with 100% backup, at least.
Technorati tags: , , ,

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

DOE Directs Contractor on Repository Design

I’ve spent the vast majority of my career in the nuclear industry working in waste and used fuel management. First, I interned at DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management as an undergraduate, then I spent a summer in France modeling breeder reactor cores, next I worked on waste management issues at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, for my master’s thesis I modeled gas evolution from Hanford N-Reactor fuel in sealed canisters, and I worked for seven years in Dominion’s nuclear spent fuel group.

In that time, I’ve witnessed many DOE proposals for repository design and function: a “hot” versus a “cold” repository; wet fuel transfer versus dry fuel transfer versus no fuel transfer; standard canister design versus standard canister design criteria versus “let the utilities decide what to ship it in"; and on and on. All of these proposals are technically feasible and also have pros and cons.

So, I read with great interest today DOE’s announcement that it has instructed its contractor to

devise a plan to operate the Yucca Mountain repository as a primarily “clean” or non-contaminated facility.
What this means to the layperson is that instead of transporting fuel from reactor sites to Yucca Mountain in one container, removing it (either in a pool or inert, dry environment), and then repackaging it in another container, most of the used fuel will be shipped in standardized containers that can be placed into an overpack and installed directly in the repository.

This plan makes a lot of sense.

Moving individual fuel assemblies around whenever the mood strikes is the best way to damage them. And while there are several methods to safely handle damaged fuel, they are costly and time-consuming. This proposal means that the vast majority of fuel will be handled the minimal number of times between core discharge and placement in a repository. A standardized design for the canisters would also facilitate efficient removal of the fuel for recycling if such technologies are later available.

Most importantly, I’m hopeful that focusing on this reasonable approach will, in DOE’s words, simplify the design and license application for the repository; because ultimately, after protecting the health and the safety of the public, DOE’s next greatest responsibility is to expedite the removal of used fuel from reactor sites.

Technorati tags: , ,

Doublechecking The Numbers...

George Monbiot did some number crunching when it comes to the U.K. and new nuclear build. Tim Worstall checked his work and found it wanting.

For some related work from my colleague David Bradish, click here and here.

Technorati tags: , , , , Carbon Emissions

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Meet Jennifer Marohasy.

UPDATE: Be sure to visit Bullet Holed Messenger too.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

"Lead, follow or get out of the way."

Over at NAM Blog, Pat Cleary has some advice for the "No Solutions Gang":

If the Outer Continental Shelf were opened to exploration, it's a start. It has has 420 trillion cubic feet of recoverable resources and 77 billion barrels of oil. That's enough natural gas to heat more than 100 million homes for 60 years and enough oil to fuel almost 85 million cars for 35 years.

As the saying goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." The environmental movement in this country has not led, -- in fact, they've been obstructionist -- haven't followed. Time to get out of the way.
This post is all part of Pat's efforts with NAM Blog's Energy Week. Check it out.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

NEI's Bowman to Serve on Baker-Led BP Panel

From today's Houston Chronicle:

BP named political heavyweight James Baker as chairman of an independent panel to review safety lapses at the troubled oil giant.

Baker, a former secretary of state and Treasury secretary, vowed Monday to lead a panel that would delve into the company's corporate culture and issue a public report within a year.

"You are going to see an aggressive and complete and thorough investigation," Baker said. "And we're going to let the chips fall where they may."

With 22 deaths since 1995, BP leads the refining industry in fatalities over the past decade, including a refinery worker killed in May at BP's Cherry Point refinery in Whatcom County and 15 people killed in an explosion at the company's Texas City, Texas, refinery in March. That explosion injured 170 people and set off widespread concern that company managers have a lax attitude toward safety.

Creation of the panel was urged two months ago by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which has been investigating the March 23 explosion at the Texas City plant. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP $21.4 million -- almost double the previous record -- after finding hundreds of willful and serious violations at Texas City.
NEI's President and CEO, Skip Bowman, was also asked to serve on the panel. For more, click here to read BP's press announcement on the investigation.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Three Florida Nuclear Reactors Shut Down in Wake of Wilma

Hurricane Wilma has left 6 million Florida residents without power, and forced Florida Power and Light to shut down reactors at St. Lucie and Turkey Point as the hurricane approached:

FPL shut the 839-megawatt unit 2 at the St. Lucie nuclear power station and both 693 MW units at the Turkey Point nuclear power station as Wilma approached the Florida coast.

Nuclear power plants are robust structures built to sustain hurricane-force winds and other natural disasters but the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the operators to shut the plants in advance of hurricane-force winds.

Officials at FPL said it was still too early to conduct a full assessment but initial reports showed the storm did not damage any of the company's power plants.

The 2,205 MW Turkey Point station is located in Florida City, in Miami-Dade County, about 25 miles south of Miami.

The 1,678 MW St Lucie station is located on Hutchinson Island, in St Lucie County, about 120 miles north of Miami. There are two 839 MW units 1 and 2 at St Lucie.

The company shut unit 1 for a planned eight-week refueling outage over the weekend of October 15-16.
Here's a statement from the NRC that was issued yesterday afternoon:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deactivated its headquarters and regional response centers that were monitoring Hurricane Wilma. The storm has moved past two nuclear power plants and storm damage to the sites is minimal. Further onsite and offsite inspections by NRC staff and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will determine the plants' abilities to restart in the near future.

Earlier, the St. Lucie plant, near Ft. Pierce, and the Turkey Point plant, 25 miles south of Miami, were shut down before the storm. All safety systems at both plants are working normally and both plants continue to receive power from the region's electrical grid.

The NRC continues to maintain contact with plant personnel and NRC inspection staff on site. Backup communication methods are available at both sites if normal communications are lost. Communication links are also established and maintained with state emergency response officials and other federal response agencies.
Our thoughts are with our friends at Florida Power and Light who are out in the field trying to get the power restored to the grid. For more on the utility's efforts to restore power to its customers, click here and here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 24, 2005

It's Energy Week at NAM Blog

Here's our friend Pat Cleary:

With energy prices soaring and everyone starting to realize what 30 years of poor decisions on energy (and being held hostage by a small band of radical environmentalists) have wrought, the time has finally come for some common-sense (and environmentally responsible) exploration of heretofore off-limits sites. The Wall Street Journal editorial we cite below noted that the recent energy bill that passed was aimed at what it called, "the real problem: government barriers to supply." As was evident from the "Blog Row" on Capitol Hill last week, Members of Congress are realizing that they need to speed the permitting process and streamline the regulatory process if we have any hope of increasing the supply of energy. We need efficiency, sure, but we need more supply.

So watch this space in the days ahead for some action steps, when you can weigh in with your Senators and Members of Congress and urge them to do something about the supply side on energy so we can hope to begin to see energy prices level off in our lifetime.
And a belated "Happy Birthday," to Pat. His reasoning sounds a lot like what our CEO, Skip Bowman, had to say last April at a speech in San Antonio, and it's a note he's been hitting regularly ever since then:
The U.S. electricity business is paying the price today for our inability to strike that balance between what was expedient and easy in the short-term, and what was prudent and more difficult in the long-term. We are paying the price today for 10 to 15 years of neglect of longer-term imperatives.
Here's hoping Congress continues to make progress in this area.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Industrial Newsroom: Nuclear energy is "our only way out."

The Industrial Market Trends is taking a look at nuclear energy, and his outlook is pretty positive. Here's a short excerpt from Part II of his analysis:

Populations are growing at a staggering rate worldwide. Energy consumption is expected to grow to insane levels—globally—within just a few decades. Alternative energy sources, as they currently exist, simply will not meet this demand. Coal would work, which leads us back to the pollution problem and that little matter of global warming. Nuclear seems our only way out with current technologies: enormous power generation potential, competitive plant costs, cheaper energy for the masses, and great profit levels for the 'big, bad, corporations.' Hey, everyone wins.
To read Part I, click here. And look forward to Part III sometime in the near future.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Meet Bhaub Korwin.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Followup On ABC News Message Board

A couple of days back, I mentioned that the message board attached to the "Loose Nukes" special report on abcnews.com had suddenly disappeared. So I sent an email to the network's Web operation, and I've just gotten the following response:

Hello Eric,

Thank you for contacting us.

We are aware of the problem and are working on correcting it. We appreciate your patience and understanding. In the meantime, please check out our other features associated with the report:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/LooseNukes/

Thanks for logging on to ABCNews.com.

Regards,

Melanie
ABCNews.com
http://abcnews.go.com/
So, they seem to be suggesting it's just a technical malfunction. I'll be asking some more questions. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Here's the abcnews.com response that just arrived:
Hello Eric,

Thank you for contacting us.

Unfortunately, we are unable to divulge the circumstances of the message board's current status. Please be patient, as we are working diligently on the issue.
Boy, that was fast. More later.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Friday, October 21, 2005

POGO/ABC News Followup

The furor over the ABC News series, "Loose Nukes on Main Street," has settled down to a low roar, but there are still a few loose ends I'd like to tie up before the end of the week.

As I mentioned a few days ago, we got a phone call from Beth Daly, head of communications for the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) concerning our post on the connections between POGO, the Carnegie Corporation and ABC News. Simply put, I thought it was too cute that a Carnegie grant recipient like POGO just magically cooperated on this story with ABC News that was being investigated, in part, by 10 Carnegie Fellows.

To refresh your memories, here's the original post from POGO's blog that piqued my interest:

ABC News is scheduled to run an investigative series next week about nuclear security and safety at home and abroad. The series, which POGO consulted on, will in theory run on a variety of ABC News programs, such as 20/20, Nightline, Good Morning America, and World News Tonight. It promises to be a comprehensive report on the many problems caused by worldwide proliferation of weapons grade nuclear materials.
On Wednesday afternoon, a very polite and pleasant Daly called me about my concerns. And to her credit, she answered all my questions - for a little while, anyway.

At the time, she said POGO's only role in the report was to schedule an interview with POGO investigator Peter Stockton. Here's a description of Stockton's role at POGO from 2001:
Peter Stockton is a paid consultant with POGO. He was special assistant to DOE Secretary Bill Richardson from 1999-2001. Mr. Stockton was the chief investigator for Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 1972-1995, including during the Committee's investigations of DOE security failures.
After clarifying Stockton's role in the series, I continued to ask questions, until I paused for a breath, and Daly hung up the phone without saying goodbye.

In any case, as you may have seen, we linked to POGO's clarification, which was as follows:
Apparently, the Nuclear Energy Institute misunderstood us when we said "POGO consulted on the ABC News investigative series, "Loose Nukes." "Consulted" did not mean POGO was hired by ABC or was paid any money. In fact, we wish we could get paid for our expertise as many people do by news media outlets. But, in order to maintain an independent stance and protect our credibility, POGO does not accept money from corporations such as ABC. We also wanted to clarify that we are not an anti-nuclear organization. We have never taken a position on the merits or the drawbacks of nuclear energy.
When I passed this answer along to some colleagues here at NEI, they let out a loud guffaw at POGO's contention that they weren't anti-nuclear. Around these parts, if POGO isn't an anti-nuclear organization, we're not sure what would be.

In any case, I still had some more questions, which I sent to Daly not long after she posted POGO's clarification. Here's my note.
Thanks. I've updated the post to reflect your response. I have a few more questions:

1) To be precise, you didn't offer any assistance to ABC News on this series other than the Peter Stockton interview? To be honest, when you use the term, "consulted on" it implies a closer relationship than just providing a talking head for an interview -- which is why I wrote what I wrote.

Bottom line: there wasn't any misunderstanding, but your language was imprecise. Is it the case that you were just exaggerating your involvement in the report?

2) Did ABC News just call you out of the blue, or were they referred to you by the Carnegie Corporation? Did Carnegie alert you to the production of the report as it was being prepared?

3) Though you don't take corporate money, you do accept foundation grants -- including a grant for $200,000 that you were awarded by Carnegie in October 2003. Is that the only grant you've gotten from Carnegie, or have there been others? Can you tell me the names of other foundations that have donated to POGO?

Thanks again for your help on this, and being so polite.
It's been two days. I'm still waiting for an answer.

In any case, there's one thing I ought to make clear: I'm not accusing POGO or Carnegie of doing anything shady in this instance (though POGO hasn't hesitated to accuse us of the same - for NEI's take on the same story, click here). However, the close ties between the two organizations is something that should have been disclosed by ABC News in the body of their report -- and they neglected to do so. I wonder why?

POSTSCRIPT: Just in the respect of full disclosure, you should know we've tangled with POGO before on a variety of issues, and they sure seem anti-nuke to us.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

U.S. and India: 'Partners in a Global Nonproliferation Regime'

In a visit today with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns expressed confidence that the U.S. Congress would pass legislation by early next year on implementation of a civilian nuclear energy between the two countries - before President Bush visits India in early 2006.

The agreement was signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to the U.S. in July. Under the deal, India has to separate civil and military nuclear facilities and open its civilian nuclear reactors to the [International Atomic Energy Agency] for inspection in return for transfer of U.S. nuclear technology and fuel.

Saran too sounded confident about making the nuclear deal a reality and said: "India and the US are becoming partners in a global non-proliferation regime."

Burns arrived here late Thursday on a two-day visit to finalise a timetable to implement the India-US civil nuclear energy deal that entails changes in US laws and guidelines of the influential Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Bulgaria Changes Its Mind About Nuclear Power

Instead of closing the nuclear power plant in the northern town of Kozloduy, the Bulgarian government will build a new plant in the northern town of Belene.

Bulgarians want to kill two birds with one stone - to remain a leading energy exporter in south-eastern Europe and not raise the price of electricity on the interior market.
Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

More on the U.K. Nuclear Debate

There has been a lot of chatter in the last few days about the issue of commercial nuclear energy in the United Kingdom (click here and here for past posts). Here are some of the highlights.

Prospect magazine provides in-depth background information and a balanced breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of each energy source:

Within its five-year life span, this government is going to have to make sure that some difficult and potentially unpopular long-term infrastructure decisions are made.

The trickiest of these relate to power generation. In the muscular days of the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), the minister of power (remember Manny Shinwell?) could instruct the board to do what he wanted. That all changed with privatisation in 1989-90. The CEGB vanished, and the role of government changed to that of facilitator and regulator. Yet were the lights went out, the government would be blamed, even though it can no longer order the building of power stations. Tony Blair's statement at the Labour party conference, promising a fresh energy review early in 2006, and accepting that nuclear energy will have to be part of it, indicates that the government is aware of its predicament.

... Because of the time it takes to build new stations, the government has to persuade the generation companies to make the major building decisions in the next five years and work must start soon on at least 20GW of new capacity. Of the more than 50 new stations in at least the early stage of planning, most are wind farms of small capacity. So far only four substantial new stations, all gas-fired and totalling 3.1GW, are likely to come on stream by 2010.
Visit Planet Ark for another analysis.

Elsewhere, icWales provides a roundup of soundbites from U.K. officials, companies and unions.

U.K. ministers in the European parliament (MEPs) also are speaking up:
Presenting a joint declaration on climate change and nuclear energy, at a seminar organised by Foratom on Wednesday in the European Parliament, UK MEP Terry Wynn said that EU leaders had to "get real" about the benefits of nuclear energy in tackling climate change.

"We can’t have a debate on climate change without discussing nuclear energy, and while I encourage renewable energy sources, let’s get real, none of them will ever run the Brussels metro system," said Wynn.

The declaration, signed by 25 MEPs calls for EU leaders to recognise nuclear’s contribution in reducing CO2 emissions, and calls on politicians and decision-makers to back investment in low carbon energy technologies including nuclear power.

And the MEPs want EU capitals to add their political weight to the argument that nuclear energy is essential if the EU is to meet its Kyoto protocol emissions reduction commitments.

The declaration also argues that nuclear energy’s role in combating climate change should not be singled out because of purely ideological or political beliefs.

"There is a perception that nuclear is unpopular…but this declaration can be a springboard for Europe’s politicians to lead from the front on nuclear energy," said Wynn.

The British MEP said that the current impasse on developing nuclear power across Europe was not a technical or environmental problem, but a political one.
Wynn also espoused the virtues of nuclear energy in an opinion piece:
I’m not naturally a pessimist but, quite frankly, a lot of what I hear on [climate change] fills me with doubt – unless I put it all together alongside the maintenance of today’s nuclear share of the EU energy mix - around 30 per cent.

... The same people who oppose nuclear power often promote energy saving, hydro-power, wind power, solar power, hydrogen and the rest. Well I support all those things too – don’t we all? But reality tells us that no new large hydro-power dams will be built because they cause other environmental damage. The same can be said for wind-power. Compare the new nuclear plant being built in Finland with a wind equivalent. The best performing wind turbines will achieve their maximum output for 30 per cent of their running time. So the 1600 MW nuclear unit being built in Finland would need at least a 5300 MW wind farm to replace it. The biggest wind turbines today can generate four MW – so who is ready for 1350 windmills next to where they live, where they take their holidays, or even next to where nobody lives? Again, wind can and must make a contribution but it does little to impact on the problem.

... As a one-time marine engineer with a background in power production and, despite being a representative of a coal mining region - when we had pits in Lancashire - I am a supporter of nuclear energy. The problem is that my support is based on technical and practical arguments – but it is political ones that will win or lose the day. But I support nuclear power primarily from an environmental point of view and have done so long before Kyoto. You see I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to live in a world which is clean and fit to live in.
U.K. mag The Business reports that Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has called for a debate on nuclear energy, personally supports new plant construction:
The Prime Minister will sell the nuclear build programme to the public and the Labour Party as a job-creating solution to the problems posed by global warming and Britain’s growing dependence on imported energy supplies from unstable countries. The Prime Minister expects a year-long inquiry into Britain’s future energy requirements to conclude that more nuclear energy is the only practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Tribune reports that most U.K. scientists agree with Blair:
Britain's leading academic experts have given the Government a “scientific warranty” to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations. The move will provide crucial underpinning of the expected decision to fill the looming energy gap with the nuclear option rather than renewable energy supplies. It is the first time Britain’s foremost scientists, including physicists, environmentalists, geologists, chemists and climatologists, have produced a collective view on the energy crisis. In early November they are expected to publish a call for the Government to adopt nuclear energy to avert energy shortages in the next decade.
Of course, there has been some talk from nuclear's opponents. Visit Tim Worstall's blog for responses to several of these articles.

And finally, energy is such a hot topic in the United Kingdom that new blogs devoted entirely to that subject are being created. Check out Anglesey Energy.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

In Many Communities, NIMBY is No More

Three more communities are lobbying for a new nuclear power plant. According to this article in the Charlotte Observer,

Three South Carolina counties want Duke Power to build a new nuclear plant and bring jobs and tax revenues.
These communities reflect the growing trend revealed by a recent survey that showed 76% of people living within 10 miles of an existing nuclear power plant are willing to have a new reactor built near them.

I believe that there is no more powerful a rebuttal to antinuclear extremists’ rhetoric than this; that people most knowledgeable of daily operations, and who presumably have been most at risk, stand up and support nuclear power.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Welcome Patrick Moore to the Blogosphere

His consulting firm, Greenspirit Strategies, has started its own blog. For now, they seem to simply be reprinting Moore's opinion pieces, but I'm sure we'll start seeing more original content soon enough.

Technorati tags: , ,

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet Mums in Science.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Nuclear Energy Industry Transitions

Bill Prebil has been named vice president of regional operations for Ameren Corp. Prebil worked for Central Illinois Light Co. before Ameren acquired it in 2003.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) has appointed Brian McGee as vice president, nuclear laboratories at Chalk River. He will replace Paul Fehrenbach, who will become AECL vice president and special adviser. Both changes are effective Nov. 21.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission have named Gordon Hunegs and Leonard Cline senior resident inspectors at the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant and Nine Mile Point, respectively. Hunegs has been with the NRC since 1986, while Cline joined the agency in 1999. Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors.

Edison International has named Barbara Mathews first chief governance officer and corporate secretary for Edison International and Southern California Edison. Mathews currently is vice president and associate general counsel for both companies. She joined Edison’s law department in 1996 as an assistant general counsel.

UPDATE:Southern California Edison also named John Field president, effective immediately. He succeeds Robert Foster, who will retire at the end of the year. Field previously was senior vice president of regulatory policy and affairs.

Technorati tags:

Vietnam to Build New Nuclear Plant

The Vietnam Institute of Energy has submitted to the government a pre-feasability study on building a 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in its central region. The plant, which would be the first in the central region, is scheduled to become operational between 2017 and 2020.

Vietnam's energy demand is estimated at 230 billion kwh in 2020, of which 165 billion kwh will be met by domestic primary sources like fossil fuel, some 5 billion kwh by renewable sources, 20 billion kwh by imports, and 40 billion kwh by nuclear energy and thermoelectricity generated from plants using imported coal.

... "We're building a legal corridor for nuclear energy development. Besides, we'll hold more international seminars on the issue. A seminar on nuclear energy's safety and economic aspects will be held in the first quarter of next year," [an official] said, adding that Vietnam will organize more nuclear energy exhibitions in 2006 to gain stronger public acceptance of the energy.
Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Nuclear Energy and California's GHG Bill

A little more than a month ago, NEI's President and CEO, Skip Bowman, addressed Town Hall LA on why "America Needs Nuclear Energy Now." Just recently, I came across a clipping from the Oct. 11 issue of Platts Electric Power Daily (subscription required) that ought to bring that notion home to California ratepayers:

Sempra Generation's proposed 1,450-MW coal-fired Granite Fox project in Northern Nevada will find a market regardless of California's global greenhouse gas policy that could limit electric sales into the state, according to a Sempra representative addressing a California Energy Commission public hearing on October 7.

(snip)

[A] "greenhouse adder" of an initial $8/ton of CO2 emissions for an electric generating unit now required of utilities in California would raise the price of energy sold by Granite Fox from $3 to $4/MWh, depending on the plant's duty cycle because the company would have to mitigate one-half of the plant's CO2 emissions.
Sounds like it might be time to build more non-emitting baseload generation.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet Gandalf 23:

I've often said that we need more nuclear reactors in this country. Yes, I work in the oil industry, and yes, that would hurt the oil industry, but so what? We need cleaner power. We need power that is not dependent upon islamafacists and unstable dictatorships.
Technorati tags: , , ,

Maryland Journalism Professor Faults ABC News and "Loose Nukes"

The bad reviews keep coming for "Loose Nukes" and ABC News. Here's what a journalism professor from the University of Maryland had to tell their campus paper, The Diamondback:

University journalism professor Chris Hanson viewed the report yesterday and discussed it with his graduate journalism ethics class.

He said he would not have trusted reporters with a graduate student’s level of experience to gather the footage by themselves, and that the network should ideally have sent a nuclear expert and news producer to the reactor sites with the students.

“I think they should have had the experts on security do more than just look at the tape,” Hanson said. “I’d like to feel more comfortable that the information was accurate ... You don’t know whether the footage shows what they say it shows. I think the problem is more of a general one — do we know the researchers know enough?”
Sounds a lot like the sort of points we've been making for more than a few weeks now.

POSTSCRIPT: Later in the article, the author, Maryland student Kate Campbell, had an interesting exchange with Jeffrey Schneider, Vice President of Public Relations at ABC:
Jacques Gansler, vice president for research at this university, said the report failed to highlight the multi-layered security system the school employs to protect the reactor, including several locked and alarmed doors, thick concrete and a surveillance camera monitored constantly by University Police.

When asked why the ABC report did not mention Maryland’s security measures, Schneider said, “It seems you’ve had a lot of time to talk to a lot of people who have a vested interest in this.”
I bet. Too bad ABC News didn't bother to give those people a real say in their report.

For other stories from The Diamondback, click here and here. Thanks to Joseph Talnagi from Ohio State for a pointer to the info.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Phone Call From POGO

Just got a call from Beth Daly at the Project for Government Oversight, who explained that their post from last week about the ABC series on "Loose Nukes" was a misunderstanding. As soon as they update their blog with their side of the story, I'll be happy to share it with you.

UPDATE: Here's the updated post from POGO:

Apparently, the Nuclear Energy Institute misunderstood us when we said "POGO consulted on” the ABC News investigative series, “Loose Nukes.” “Consulted” did not mean POGO was hired by ABC or was paid any money. In fact, we wish we could get paid for our expertise as many people do by news media outlets. But, in order to maintain an independent stance and protect our credibility, POGO does not accept money from corporations such as ABC. We also wanted to clarify that we are not an anti-nuclear organization. We have never taken a position on the merits or the drawbacks of nuclear energy.

More later, if warranted.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

NRC Commissioner Lyons Addresses Organization of Agreement States

In an Oct. 4 speech, Commissioner Peter Lyons of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission outlined the key opportunities and challenges facing the NRC and its "Agreement State" partnership. An agreement state (there are 32) regulates most if not all sources of radiation in that state in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act.

Lyons spoke about the NRC and agreement states' mission:

Addressing risks through an integrated approach that recognizes the complementary nature of safety and security requirements will meet our collective goal to enhance the control of sources in today's environment. This approach can ensure adequate control of sources to prevent both adverse health impacts and, as an additional complementary benefit, prevent potential malevolent use of radioactive sources.
Lyons explained that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 "brings under the Commission's regulatory authority certain types of radioactive material ... that previously were not included under the Atomic Energy Act's definition of byproduct material or under the purview of NRC's regulatory program." This new jurisdiction ultimately will result in "a more coherent national framework for regulation of most radioactive materials," he said.

The commissioner also addressed the NRC's role in the proposed national radiation monitoring system for safety and security, which the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is attempting to establish:
The DNDO's mission is to provide a single accountable organization with dedicated responsibilities to develop the global nuclear detection architecture. DNDO will acquire and support the deployment of the domestic detection system to detect and report attempts to import or transport a nuclear device or fissile or radiological material intended for illicit use. NRC currently has two staff on a detail assignment assisting the DNDO in this effort.
Lyons added that "state involvement will provide DNDO with valuable insight on how this national radiation monitoring system may be deployed." He went on to praise states' participation in the international radiation protection community.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet Meme First:

Oyster Creek generates about 10% of New Jersey's total electrical output (while creating zero air or water pollution), and three other nuclear reactors generate another 40%. Environmentalists want to shut all four down, immediately. To the extent that such an electricity deficit could be made up, it would probably mostly come from coal-burning plants in Pennsylvania. Such plants are notoriously dirty.
Technorati tags: , , , ,

Congratulations to...

Our blogging colleague Kevin McCoy of Framatome. As it turns out, Kevin was a co-principal investigator on the Purdue study on advanced nuclear fuel that I referenced yesterday. Kevin's work concentrated on thermochemistry and rod performance.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

ABC News Gets Dirty With Carnegie and POGO

My respect for ABC News is dropping by the hour. After doing some extra searching, I discovered that the virulently anti-nuclear Project for Government Oversight or POGO, didn't just serve as a source for interviews on the "Loose Nukes" series, it was actually hired as a consultant. My source: POGO's own blog:

ABC News is scheduled to run an investigative series next week about nuclear security and safety at home and abroad. The series, which POGO consulted on, will in theory run on a variety of ABC News programs, such as 20/20, Nightline, Good Morning America, and World News Tonight. It promises to be a comprehensive report on the many problems caused by worldwide proliferation of weapons grade nuclear materials.
It's one thing to interview a biased source. But this is another thing entirely.

But it gets worse. What I discovered was that POGO is currently getting a 2-year $200,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York -- the same Carnegie Corporation that provided the ten Carnegie Fellows for the "Radioactive Roadtrip". For more, click here.

I don't really know what else to say, other than ABC News has some explaining to do. I do know one thing -- I don't think they'll be calling us to do any "consulting" anytime soon.

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Little Green Footballs, we're glad you're here..

Technorati tags: , , , ,

ABC News Hauls Down "Loose Nukes" Discussion Board


After taking a relentless pounding for their reporting in their "Loose Nukes on Main Street" series, ABC News has erased the discussion forum associated with it from abcnews.com. As of right now, a visit to the forum leads to a page that says: "This forum does not exist." It was just a week ago today that we reported that other readers in the forum were discovering that some of their posts were being erased.

Looks like "free speech for me, but not for thee," is the news of the day. More later, as this develops.

Thanks to Joseph Talnagi at Ohio State University for the heads up.

UPDATE: I can also confirm that all of the messages that I posted to the "Loose Nukes" forum have been erased. However, I have started another discussion string in John Stossel's forum asking ABC News why they erased "Loose Nukes." Feel free to join in.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I've also added another discussion string in the Primetime Live discussion board. Thanks to Ryan Meyer at the University of Missouri for the suggestion.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Posters on the message board connected with Primetime Live are now reporting that their messages are being erased:

Postings that have given all too effective a rebuttal of ABC's shoddy and irresponsible Loose Nukes stories are now being shoved down the Memory Hole. ABC's forum managers should be ashamed of themselves. Do you want to become the next CBS?
And here's another challenge from an angry forum participant:
I don't think they were expecting the research reactor community to challenge them so strongly. ABC probably isn't used to being challenged on their own turf, so they took their ball and went home. They were big and brave when they had the stage to themselves on the one hour prime time format, but when they started taking some flak, they pulled the plug.

My guess is that they'll come up with some weak, lame excuse, like "our interns felt threatened by some of those responses". Well, if so, all I can say is, if you're gonna dish it out, you'd better have the guts to stand up and take your lumps. A valuable life lesson for the kids to learn.
Indeed, all too valauble.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Purdue Engineers Develop Advanced Nuclear Fuel

While some have tried to create news at Purdue University, some nuclear engineers have been spending time making some real news in the area of nuclear fuel:

Purdue University nuclear engineers have developed an advanced nuclear fuel that could save millions of dollars annually by lasting longer and burning more efficiently than conventional fuels, and researchers also have created a mathematical model to further develop the technology.

New findings regarding the research will be detailed in a peer-reviewed paper to be presented on Oct. 6 during the 11th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics in Avignon, France. The paper was written by Shripad Revankar, an associate professor of nuclear engineering; graduate student Ryan Latta; and Alvin A. Solomon, a professor of nuclear engineering.

The research is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and focuses on developing nuclear fuels that are better at conducting heat than conventional fuels. Current nuclear fuel is made of a material called uranium dioxide with a small percentage of a uranium isotope, called uranium-235, which is essential to induce the nuclear fission reactions inside current reactors.
Click here for an abstract, or here to request the full length paper.

Thanks to Futurepundit for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

I'm pleased to welcome our friends from Ontario, Bruce Power, to the Blogosphere -- though the status of the blog seems to be unofficial.

And congratulations on getting the official OK on refurbishing Bruce A 1&2 on Lake Huron.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

BBC News Covers U.K. Nuclear Power Debate

With all but one of the United Kingdom's power stations set to close by 2023, and with Prime Minister Tony Blair calling for an "assessment of all options, including civil nuclear power," BBC News has taken up the issue.

First, BBC offers its own analysis:

Nuclear power looks as if it should be the answer to all our energy conundrums, and perhaps even to climate change. It provides a steady stream of energy, and does not depend on hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. It is the nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source, apart from natural renewables. But it still engenders massive distrust, so much that many people say it can never be part of the way to avoid a disastrously warming world.
The report goes on to say, "Most of us worry far more about something that we see as very unlikely but grotesquely horrible than we do about what we perceive as far likelier but much more mundane." In other words, "We are understandably terrified of nuclear meltdown, but far fewer of us yet fear the prospect of planetary overheating as we should." The math is simple:
The UK's nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the country's electricity, and by 2023 all are due to have closed. But by 2030 it is estimated world CO2 emissions will be 62% higher than today, as global demand for energy grows.
As the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source, nuclear energy should be part of the U.K. energy mix. That's what Sir David Wallace, vice president of the Royal Society and a nuke supporter, tells skeptic Tom Burke, a visiting professor at Imperial College London, in an e-mail debate printed on the BBC Web site.

In fact, Wallace stresses that nuclear should be only a part of the energy mix:
The debate about where we get our energy from must not be polarised, as it so often is, as a trade-off between renewable sources of energy and nuclear power.

If we are to ensure that we are cutting our emissions of greenhouse gases drastically, while at the same time ensuring that there is security of supply, then we must develop a policy of diversity based on evidence and not ideology.

In the short to medium term it is difficult to see how we can meet our energy needs without the help of nuclear power - a relatively "climate friendly" source of energy.

Nuclear currently provides us with about a quarter of our electricity in the UK. But with almost all nuclear power stations reaching the end of their lives in the next 20 years it is not clear how we will make up this shortfall.

Unfortunately - and wishful thinking will not make it otherwise - this gap is unlikely to be filled by renewable sources of energy such as wind, wave, solar or the burning of "energy crops".

The UK's target of generating 10% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010 is laudable but even this target looks ambitious.

In 2002, for example, renewables accounted for just 3% of electricity. Even if we achieve the full 10% we will be more reliant on fossil fuels in 2010 than we are today, if we allow nuclear power stations to close as scheduled.

As part of a comprehensive energy strategy, we should be striving energetically to meet and go beyond these targets for renewable energy.

There is clearly security in diversity of supply and in the long term we would expect renewables to be able to supply a much larger proportion of our energy needs. And the UK is in a particularly good position to exploit wave and tidal power.
Wallace goes on to suggest the government impose a carbon tax to "encourage the development of carbon free technologies - including nuclear and renewable power - and a move away from carbon based fuels in the overall energy supply, as well as promoting energy efficiency measures."

In response, dismisses nuclear power in Britain as "irrelevant," primarily because nuclear plant construction is such a lengthy process. Instead, he proposes using advanced clean-coal technologies. What Burke fails to acknowledge is that such technologies are also a long way off.

In the second round of e-mails, Wallace points out that capture technology has yet to be tested on a large scale, sequestration will incur high costs, a method of safe storage is still "problematic," a coal mining is a physically dangerous activity. "All of this means for me that there are no simple solutions, no silver bullets," Wallace says. "Every option will have to be brought into play whenever it can contribute to tackling the problem. ... We need technologies to be ruled in at this point, not ruled out, and action taken now."

UPDATE: The Institute of Physics is weighing in on the energy issue, saying in a new report that the U.K. "lacks the necessary skills to achieve the government’s target of producing 10 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010" calling for further research into renewables.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

"Megatons to Megawatts" and The Last Best Chance

On Monday evening, HBO aired a documentary on nuclear terrorism entitled, Last Best Chance that starred former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. In the FAQ for the documentary, you'll find a passage that our readers here at NEI Nuclear Notes would be familiar with:

For the last ten years, the U.S. and Russia have been working together to recycle weapons-grade uranium from 10,000 dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into fuel used by American power plants to produce electricity. Today just about half of America's nuclear power is generated by fuel derived from Russian nuclear warheads.
The program they're referring to of course is "Megatons to Megawatts," a subject we've dealt with from time to time here at NEI Nuclear Notes. And I guess you shouldn't be surprised that despite rendering the equivalent of 10,000 nuclear warheads inactive forever, radical environmentalists still hate the program:
The American taxpayer has paid billions in secret subsidies for U.S. reactor fuel, by buying up weapons grade materials in the former Soviet Union, and shipping it back home for commercial power stations, on the cheap. There is no accounting for all the money spent on this anti-terrorism program that just happens to benefit the largest welfare industry in America.
As we've noted before, it's too bad these folks don't offer any solutions of their own.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

University of Arizona Faults ABC Report

Another university has taken issue with the ABC News report that aired last Thursday on Prime Time Live. This time, it's the University of Arizona that's debunking the assertions made by the network and its interns:

The ABC report said the nuclear fuel contained in the reactor could be used to make a dirty bomb, which would spread radioactive material across the campus.

But UA officials said the TRIGA reactor on campus has been safe since its installation in 1958, and the amount of fuel in the reactor is insufficient for a dirty bomb.

There are also secret security measures in place to prevent such intrusions, said UA spokesman Paul Allvin.

These secret measures, which Allvin called "invisible" to the community, have been approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and consistently tested by FBI, Tucson Police Department and State Homeland Security, he said.

Allvin refused to elaborate on what safety protocols are in place, citing that the NRC prohibits releasing such information, but said there are security measures designed to prevent people from taking sensitive materials to create a bomb.

"Just because you can't see the security measures in place doesn't mean that they aren't there," Allvin said.

Allvin characterized the ABC report as inaccurate and sensationalistic. He said the unlocked door identified by ABC was not to the reactor itself but was open to allow students access to an all-night computer lab in the same building.

If someone were to try to enter the room where the reactor is, they would know, he said.
Technorati tags: , , , ,

Monday, October 17, 2005

Test Reactor Fuel Not Vulnerable

If there's one thing I've learned about nuclear technology in the 17 months I've worked at NEI, it's this: Nuclear energy isn't rocket science.

Unfortunately, it's harder.

Which is why my head spun around so quickly at the conclusions drawn by the ABC News report, "Loose Nukes on Main Street," and in particular, the story on last Thursday's edition of Primetime Live titled, "Radioactive Roadtrip".

Despite the fact that I've worked here full-time for better than a year, I still have to make sure to doublecheck my facts to get everything right. So when I saw that ABC News and its interns were making some startling conclusions about how easy it would be to steal nuclear materials from one of the research reactors, I knew the report was in trouble from the word go.

If you want the truth about nuclear energy, you need to talk to real professionals. Here's an e-mail I received earlier today from John Lyngdal, a retired senior reactor operator (SRO) who used to work at both Oregon State University (OSU) and Reed College:

I'm a "retired" SRO who years ago pulled rods at the Reed College reactor and also had experiments performed at the Oregon State University, so it was some interest to me of how this piece of pseudo-journalism would portray these facilities... I chatted with another operator who was onsite when a shipment of HEU fuel arrived. The fuel was transported by an armed military(?) convoy to the OSU site, the spent elements were transferred to the storage racks, and the new fuel added to the core. A core excess measurement was performed followed by a power calibration with armed guards on watch. They didn't leave until the core had operated at 900 MW for over an hour at which point the fuel was considered self-protected by the intense radiation generated by the fission products...

Having moved fuel rods in and out of the core of the Reed facility, I find the ABC report even more incredulous... One thing I do remember is that there was a mark on the fuel movement tool that was assigned a spotter, that would call out if it approached the surface of the pool. This was of course backed up by the RAM located at the edge of the pool. To make a long story short, we were told that an irradiated fuel element had a radiation field sufficient to place the fuel handler into convulsions(before they finally succumbed to the radiation exposure effects) before it breached the surface of the pool. Beyond this, the idea of a SCUBA equipped terrorist diving to the core to steal the fuel might seem plausible to the public, but not to a person versed in the effects of exposure to a radiation 100-200K rad/hr radiation field.
Something to think about.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Nuclear Energy Insight

The October issue of Nuclear Energy Insight is now available online. In it, you'll find an article on the continuing momentum toward the construction of new nuclear power plants in the United States. There also are reports on the response of utilities to Hurricane Katrina and a proposed radiation standard for the Yucca Mountain repository. Other articles discuss a U.N. study on the health effects of Chernobyl, the visit by Tennessee's governor to the Sequoyah nuclear plant, and universities researching new reactor designs.

ABC News Quote of the Day

This comes from a story from Friday's USA Today on the ABC News report on testing and research reactors:

Ohio State and Kansas State officials say they give tours because, as educational facilities, it's their job to spread the word about how nuclear energy is being used.

Saying the interns were able to get close to the facility is "like coming to my driveway and saying, 'Guess what? I just got into McDonald's!'" said Earle Holland, Ohio State senior director for research communications.
Folks, Earle Holland is one of the heroes of this story, in that he won't let ABC News get away with what they've done.

News flash: We won't either. Hat tip to the National Review Media Blog for the link.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

The NRC on Test and Research Reactors

Click here for some helpful information from NRC on the ABC News reactor story.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Fox News Picks Up On ABC News Blunders

Here's a link from a Friday night commentary by Brit Hume.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

MIT Nuclear Grad: ABC News Guilty of "Overhype"

Over at the Daily Kos, one MIT graduate takes apart the network's claims about the research reactor on that campus:

In summary, while I can't speak for the other universities that ABC visited, my knowledge of the setup and procedures at MIT indicates that ABC is guilty of seriously overhyping the threat from these research reactors.
In case you missed it, here's our post from last week detailing MIT's response to the report.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Texas A&M Takes on ABC News Report

Texas A&M University is taking issue with a number of assertions ABC News made in their report on the visit to the school's Nuclear Science Center (NSC):

Dan Reece, the director of the NSC, said there were many false accusations in ABC's report.

"You'll notice that they did not show any unlocked doors or backpacks at A&M," Reece said.

"We are allowed to give tours to the public by the federal government, and visitors are allowed to use cameras."

Reece said if small explosions were put into the reactor pool, the explosion would make a mess inside the NSC but do nothing beyond that. He said the walls of the pool are made of 5-foot-thick cement.

"If that happened, I might not have a very pretty place to work the next day, but the health and safety of the public and students are our main concern," he said.

"Primetime" reported that the reactor on A&M's campus is running on highly-enriched uranium or weapons-grade material, which is 90 percent enriched uranium; however, according to a fact sheet issued by the University, the fuel on which A&M's reactor runs is 60-percent enriched uranium.

The NSC is in the process of converting the fuel to 20-percent enriched uranium, according to the fact sheet.

Leslie Braby, an A&M nuclear engineering professor, said it would be extremely difficult to steal the fuel or create a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is a weapon made of conventional explosives, such as dynamite, and radioactive material, which scatters radiation and contamination in the air, he said.

"Even if there were 12 people willing to use a suicide attack on (the reactor), there still wouldn't be enough time to do it before the police would respond," Braby said.

Braby said the reactor is located underneath 30 feet of water and that to get to the fuel would take a very long time.
More later from other schools. If you're reading, and you're at one of the institutions smeared by this report, please send your info our way.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

ABC News Intern Update: Who's Zooming Who?

There simply isn't a better example of the sloppy reporting involved in the ABC News feature, "Radioactive Road Trip," than the first person account written by ABC News intern Melia Patria of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Here's an interesting excerpt:

Whaley started our tour in the reactor control room with a 45-minute slide presentation on nuclear energy. As if we were elementary school girls, he lectured us in a patronizing tone with simplistic explanations. He then left us in the hands of two flirtatious male students, who proceeded to show us around the reactor.

As we stood atop a raised platform, just steps from the reactor pool, one of the students whipped a camera out of his pocket and asked to take a photo. "My roommates are never going to believe," he said with a Kansas twang and an ear-to-ear grin, "that two cute girls came to the reactor! Now, squeeze in and smile!"

Amused by the request, we posed above the pool in which the highly-enriched uranium is stored. After a few snapshots, we realized the power of our pseudo-celebrity status as The Girls Who Visited the K-State Reactor. So for the next hour, as the two engineering students scoped us out, we scoped out the reactor and the security. We noted the open entry door to the control room and the closed-circuit TV system.


But what Patria didn't know, and what ABC News has failed to acknowledge since the report aired, was that their interns had been detected weeks before through the work of NRC, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Here's how the Kansas City Star told that same story:

When [Melia] Patria and [Hsing] Wei showed up at the K-State reactor, the staff had a good idea who the women really were. After other campus reactors reported similarly strange visits, federal authorities had figured out that the visitors were actually undercover reporters. The FBI passed the tip along to K-State.

In hopes of proving their suspicions, reactor employees asked the women to pose for a photograph. To get the shot, Cullens said, he had to resort to his own little deception.

“They were playing the flirt card to get information,” he said. “We wanted a picture of them for the FBI, so we flirted back.”

At one point, a reactor researcher asked the women what had drawn them to K-State. One of them, Cullens recalled, said her boyfriend lived in Kansas.

“We asked where, and she sort of pointed off to the southwest and said, ‘Over there,’ ” he said. “We figured there had to be something strange going on.”
Recall that in statements to the press, ABC News has said that the interns were instructed not to lie to personnel at the reactors. It doesn't appear that way from this account. You can find the photo, as well as K-State's version of the visit, by clicking here. And feel free to contact the university for a high-res copy of the photo.

UPDATE: Late Friday night, after we had all gone home for the weekend, ABC News issued a statement of support for the story:
The goal of this investigation was to do something the federal government does not: conduct unannounced field tests at the various reactors to see how easy or difficult it would be for a stranger to gain access to the reactors, not how easy or difficult it would be for an experienced investigative journalist. As graduate students the fellows were ideal candidates to undertake the legwork.

When asked, they identified themselves truthfully as graduate students. Terrorists don't announce their intentions, nor do they notify security officials in advance that they plan to visit.
True enough. And that's why the system worked. Through the standard background checks, the proper authorities were notified of this attempt to probe and breach security. If there had been an actual attempt to probe these facilities, the subjects would have been identified and apprehended. The fact that the institutions knew they were dealing with "journalists" was the only thing that prevented them from being detained.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's a passage from another first person account from K-State written by Hsing-Wei from the Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government:

Unfortunately, this story has a mixed ending — it remains unclear whether this little adventure can be judged as a tale of success for public safety. While we had been noticed and noted, this news arrived a little late. We had already entered two nuclear research facilities in Wisconsin and Kansas, and afterward, would visit two more in Missouri.

Perhaps even more surprising, in a follow-up phone interview conducted several weeks after our visit, the KSU reactor director seemed unaware that we had ever been stopped by campus police. Apparently, the warning about two so-called shady female travelers never reached some ears at all.

Yeah, just like it seemed they were only flirting with you.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Thanks...

... To all of the folks from around the country at test and research reactors for the information that they've passed this way about the ABC News "Radioactive Road Trip." In particular, Karen Miller of Texas A&M, Lefteri Tsoukalas and Jere Jenkins of Purdue, and Mike Whaley of Kansas State. It's clear that ABC News did your community a bad turn last week, and we'll keep following the story as long as we need to.

In the meantime, if you encountered any of the ABC News interns over the summer, NEI Nuclear Notes wants to hear from you. Just drop any of our contributors an e-mail, and we'll make arrangements to get in touch.

UPDATE: And a big thank you to Pat Cleary and all of our friends at the NAM blog -- click here for his latest update on the test reactor story.

UPDATE: Thanks to John Loy, guestblogging at Irish Trojan, for hearing us out.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Friday, October 14, 2005

Why We Need Research Reactors

In ABC's capsule review of its visit to Reed College, the network went all the way to Austria to find a source to bash research reactors and the folks who use them:

Nuclear security experts say that many universities no longer need their research reactors. "I think it's a prestige subject that no scientist really wants to part with one of his wonderful toys. And a research reactor is in fact a wonderful toy as such," said Fritz Steinhausler, professor of Physics and Biophysics at the University of Salzburg in Austria.
Over at the ABC News message board, Carl Willis, a graduate student in the nuclear engineering program at Ohio State thinks a little differently:
People who watched this primetime expose will come away with the impression that all our research reactors are good for is the color-enhancement of topaz. I encourage anyone to set up a tour of their local university reactor and learn first-hand what that reactor is doing, since one apparently cannot get an honest description on television. Fundamentally, research reactors are valuable as sources of neutrons for a myriad of basic and applied research in biology, materials science, physics, environmental and geochemistry, medicine, and many other fields. They are the most prolific and reliable sources of neutrons we have, and are NOT an obsolete technology. Security is obviously important at reactors. But if an irrational, fear-inspired regulatory structure makes reactors an impossibility, we will lose the technology and the neutrons and start crawling back into the dark cave.
And that's part of what this report is really about -- shutting down legitimate scientific research in the pursuit of a narrow-minded agenda.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

U-Md. Disputes ABC Report

Mark down the University of Maryland-College Park as the latest insitution to take issue with ABC News.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

U-Wisc. Disputes ABC News Conclusions

Now the University of Wisconsin-Madison is disputing the findings of ABC News.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Officials at Utah Dispute Details of ABC Report

In Utah, officials at the University of Utah are challenging the reporting by ABC News interns that asserted that the school's test and research reactor was a security risk. The following comes from the Deseret Morning News:

Last June two female student interns with ABC were given a guided tour of the U.'s Merrill Engineering Building and the reactor, where about 1,000 people reportedly have visited this year.

ABC apparently told a different story.

"They are telling people there was a gaping hole in our security, which there was not," said Melinda Krahenbuhl, director of the U. nuclear engineering program. "The security plan worked — they (the students) were escorted at all times."

Krahenbuhl said security checks were run on the two students and that they were asked to leave their backpacks outside the reactor and its control room.
According to the ABC report:
"Very poor risk management," said Ronald E. Timm, a veteran security consultant who has analyzed the vulnerability of the nation's nuclear laboratories for the Department of Energy. The facility, which was considered enough of a risk to be shut down during the 2002 Winter Olympics, could still be a target, Timm said.
But according to the Deseret News:
ABC's coverage also reported the U. shut down its reactor for security reasons during the 2002 Winter Olympics here.

"The university was closed — there was nobody here," Krahenbuhl said.

A "shutdown" implies that the U. reactor was requested to be decommissioned, "and that's not true," she added. The U. was being "proactive," she said, by going into a "sub-critical configuration," which means the reactor cannot sustain power.
Sounds like the sort of innocent mistake somebody could make if they didn't have a background in nuclear engineering. Of course, most of us don't get the chance to broadcast that misinformation on national television. Here's more from the ABC report:

Security Observations: No guards. No metal detectors. Tours available. No background check. Names and addresses given, but no IDs requested. Bags had to be left in office. Surveillance camera in hallway.

What We Found: A tour scheduled one week in advance gave access to the reactor pool and control room. Fellows were able to bring cameras on tour. On a return visit at about 12:30 a.m., a basement entrance to the building was unlocked. A security camera was located in a hallway leading to the reactor room, but the Fellows were able to videotape in the hallway at night unchallenged. The door to the reactor facility was locked.
But the folks at Utah aren't buying it:
She (Krahenbuhl) said the ABC interns did, in fact, walk unescorted into the U. engineering building at night, like many graduate students do, but that they did not get through four locked doors to access the reactor by themselves. Krahenbuhl said U. officials were aware the students, Traci Curry and Michelle Rabinowitz, were in the building.

But ABC, she said, has been getting its facts wrong, despite her attempts to set an ABC producer in New York straight during an August phone call. That producer, Maddie Sauer, was unavailable for comment.

"She didn't include any of the facts," Krahenbuhl said. "I think ABC's national news is being irresponsible."

She said it's appalling to teach students that it's OK to air "unethical" and inaccurate reporting for the sake of a "sensationalized" story.
For more, check out a story from KSL-AM in Salt Lake City. We're finding this sort of inconsistency is pretty typical of the reporting involved, as the interns have omitted critical details about their visits that make it look like security was lapse and slipshod, including the fact that while visiting the reactor at Ohio State, university officials threw the two interns out of the reactor building when they started asking too many questions about security.

I wonder what other details they got wrong?

Technorati tags: , , , ,

NRO on ABC News Report: "Needlessly hysterical"

We're seeing plenty of reaction coming in from around the country on the ABC News story, and to say the least, the network is getting hit very hard. Here's Stephen Spruiell from National Review Online's Media Blog:

And without a doubt, this is the dumbest, most needlessly hysterical homeland-security report I’ve seen since the New York Times editorial writer Adam Cohen packed up his backpack and his khakis and wondered around a park outside an ExxonMobil refinery for a few minutes before declaring it a “time bomb” in the paper of record.

That said, if ABC had just called it “Radioactive Road Rules” instead, this would make a great reality show.
More later.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Freudian Slip by ABC?

Looking for the latest shots fired between ABC News and the nuclear research community, I googled the title of an AP article that I learned included some criticism about ABC's sham of an investigation. I was surprised when an ABC link was returned. I'll get to my reaction to the story in just a minute, but what nearly made me spew orange juice over my keyboard was that ABC has filed this under Entertainment. Frankly, I couldn't agree more with the placement.

Irony aside, most of the article just served to make me want to take the interns, their supervisor, and the ABC execs firmly by the ears and give them MY tour of a research reactor.

By now Eric and others have disputed most of the erroneous details of the story and have called out the powers-that-be at ABC.

But I want to take issue with the interns. The AP story says

Ross said it wasn't a case of the interns being taught "gotcha" journalism instead of investigative journalism. The students did a great deal of research into the nuclear programs before going to the universities, he said.
Yet, Dana Hughes, a journalism student at Columbia University, is quoted as saying that if all it took to get into facilities was talking like a student or flirting
some people could find that a questionable line of defense
Yes, I suppose that many people who are unaware of the vast operational and material differences between a commerical plant and a research facility would question the security. However, any honest research into the matter would have revealed that most university reactors do grant tours rather liberally with or without flirting or a student ID. Further research would clearly demonstrate the reason such tours are allowed, and that is that with minimal precautions (like not allowing bags into the area around the reactor) there really isn't anything a tourist can do to seriously jeopardize the security of the material or the safety of the public.

But that's the point, isn't it?

A journalist with integrity would have sought to educate the average American on this little known subject. But who needs integrity when a little yellow journalism will get you a cushy new job at ABC News?

Nuclear Energy Industry Transitions

Edward McGaffigan Jr. was sworn in Oct. 12 for an unprecedented third term as a commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reappointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 6, McGaffigan will serve as one of five commissioners until June 2010. His first term began in August 1996.

Black & Veatch Corp. has named Dean Oskvig president and chief executive officer of B&V Energy, effective Jan. 1, 2006. Oskvig has been with B&V Energy since 1975 and currently is chief operating officer. He will replace current President and CEO Ron Wood, who will retire in February 2006.

Technorati tags:

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part IV)

And finally, here's Dr. Karam's summary of his thoughts on the ABC report:

I think that this program was neither fair nor balanced. It would have been more fair to have given an accurate assessment of the actual risks. Access to a research reactor does not automatically lead to a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb - there is a lot of other work that would have to be done to make these happen. It is possible, but difficult to pull off in practice.

Regarding the lack of balance, I would have liked to have seen a radiation safety professional to discuss the real risks from exposure to low levels of radiation, rather than the assumption that it is automatically deadly. In other words, I think they are underestimating the difficulties involved in turning "access" into a terrorist weapon, and I think they overestimated the risks from such an attack.

The bottom line is that the show said that a lot of things were "possible," but didn't mention anything that was "likely." They pointed out legitimate security risks but I don't know that the manner in which they presented their information did much to advance the public debate on this matter. And, unfortunately, the network (like the government) continues to tell everyone in the world that universities are "soft" targets, making it that much more likely that a university will someday be attacked by terrorists - even if they upgrade their security, because I doubt that there will be a future show lauding universities on these improvements. This is too bad.

In my mind, the real research reactor risks are posed by overseas research reactors, of which much has been written. While there are some potential concerns, there are far easier and more effective ways of making dirty bombs.
Technorati tags: , , , ,

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part III)

Here at NEI, one aspect of last night's story that we found particularly egregious was the multiple references to the possibility that highly enriched uranium might be stolen for use in a bomb. But what ABC News didn't provide were the details of exactly what would be involved in an operation to do just that. But Dr. Karam did:

To me, a more serious concern would be the theft of highly-enriched reactor fuel for use in making nuclear weapons, as suggested a few times. Let's face it - if a terrorist is going to steal the fuel and dissolve it to remove the fission products to make a dirty bomb, they may as well also remove the uranium to make a nuclear weapon! But let's think about this a little. The fuel elements are at the bottom of a 15-20 foot swimming pool. To remove them, terrorists would have to have scuba gear (or very good lungs), a crane or other lifting gear, and a way to move the fuel elements from the reactor building into their truck. All possible, but time-consuming.

They would need to disassemble the reactor core, unless they were going to lift it out whole - either will take time because of the size and awkwardness of the task. The bottom line is that nobody is going to break in at night and steal a reactor core overnight. A long weekend might suffice, but would require being undetected. Certainly it can be done, but would be difficult to pull off, and impossible to do so undected. And, once obtained, terrorists would have to find a way to hide out long enough to dissolve the fuel, remove the uranium, purify the uranium oxide into uranium metal, and machine the metal into bombs.

The other thing is that, once the fuel were stolen, the terrorists would have to do this work under tremendous time constraints because the entire national law enforcement and military establishments would be looking for them with some fairly sophisticated equipment. Making a gun-type nuclear device is not difficult, but it would take time to let the fuel "cool", and to do everything I mentioned above. Not impossible, but not a simple matter, and plenty of room to get caught.
Again, no simple feat. But after watching the ABC report, you'd get the impression that it was as easy as shoplifting a Snickers from a candy store.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part II)

Later, Dr. Karam provided some background on research reactors, and why the risks involved with their operation were exaggerated by ABC News:

A research reactor consists of a reactor core submerged in a deep pool of water. The reactor part is an assembly of metal plates that are uranium oxide in a metal or ceramic matrix, clad with metal (usually a zirconium or aluminum alloy). The power output is sufficiently low that the natural circulation of water in the pool (warm water rises, cool water sinks) keeps the reactor cool. The fuel elements require fairly precise spacing to sustain a chain reaction - too close or too distant and the reaction will stop.

Throwing a bomb into the pool will damage the core, and may break fuel elements. This, in turn, would release some radioactivity - primarily within the reactor building. The reason for this is that the fuel elements are metal - they are more likely to be bent or twisted than to be broken in half, and they will certainly not be vaporized. This is important because it means that the amount of radioactivity that can escape is limited - a cracked fuel element, even a broken one, will release only as much radioactivity as is exposed at that point. Think of cutting into a pie - some of the filling leaks out into the cut area, but the pie does not spontaneously empty when it's cut open. Similarly, if a fuel element is broken or cracked, some of the radioactivity will leak out, but only a fraction. In other words, there will likely be a release of radioactivity, but most of the radioactivity will remain contained within the fuel elements. Of the activity that escapes from the fuel elements, much would be entrained in the water, and would end up in the reactor building, not on campus. Some contamination would likely be released, and some would likely enter the environment. However, the risk from this would be low because radiation is less dangerous than many tend to believe. I would refer you to the papers I sent you earlier for more on the effects of low-level radiation exposure.

The bottom line is that throwing a small bomb into a reactor pool is likely to damage the core, and likely to cause some radioactivity to be released. However, I would not expect this contamination to pose a health risk to people nearby. Similarly, a truck bomb would likely damage the core and could release larger amounts of radioactivity to the environment, but much of the blast would be diverted by the concrete "swimming pool," reducing the amount of damage.
As you can see, spending the time and effort to put together an explanation like this is rather considerable, and it will always be easier to play on people's fears of the unknown, or simply what isn't understood, than to explain the science involved.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part I)

As I've been cruising around the Web this morning, I've come across a boatload of reaction to last night's report on Primetime Live on university research reactors -- most of it rather negative. The first item I'd like to share comes from an e-mail exchange between a reporter and Dr Andrew Karam of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Dr. Karam had some interesting observations to say the least.

The note is rather lengthy, so I'll be breaking it up into a series of posts:

I was surprised to see the Committee to Bridge the Gap (a strident anti-nuclear group) presented as the "voice of reason" in opposition to the NRC. I was also surprised at the continued insistence that research reactors are "potential dirty bombs." I was also surprised to hear Graham Allison's suggestion of the amount of havoc that a bomb could cause - in my opinion, he overstated the risks from radioactive contamination. However, I also feel he overstated the risk of cancer from dirty bombs in his recent book, which I communicated to him via e-mail after reading the book last year (never did hear back from him...). Dr. Allison is very well-informed regarding the risks of an attack, but I feel he overestimates the risks of exposure to low levels of radiation. I would have liked to have seen a radiation safety professional to discuss the potential health risks, but I suspect this would not have advanced the aims of the show.
That's for sure. More later.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Getting In Touch With ABC News on "Loose Nukes"

I'm sure things are very tough for some of our friends in the research reactor community today. It's never fun to have to deal with hostile media, and it's even worse when some of the methods reporters use start shading the line between legitimate journalism and infotainment.

If anyone feels compelled to write, here are the names of the principal contacts at ABC:

Ms. Kerry Smith Marash, VP for Editorial Quality
ABC Television Network
47 West 66th Street — 5th Floor
New York, NY 10023-4446

Mr. John Zucker, Exec VP
ABC Television Network
77 West 66th Street — 16th Floor
New York, NY 10023-6201

Mr. Townsend Davis, Executive Counsel, Law and Regulation
ABC Television Network
77 West 66th Street — 16th Floor
New York, NY 10023-6201

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Time for a Reality Check

In the fast-moving world of blogs, eleven days is a long time. But even though all that time has passed, I still feel compelled to comment on an article in the Las Vegas Sun, published on October 2. The article, "Long spans for radiation standards leave many cold", discussed objections to radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain.

According to the arguments of antinuclear activist Kristin Schrader-Frechette, standards based on average doses are inadequate. Her example is a release of radiation to a town of 715 people in which one person receives a dose of 10,000 millirems while the remaining 714 people receive doses of 1 millirem each. She points out that such a release would not violate the average individual dose rate limit of 15 millirems per year, but it would impose a dose that she considers unacceptable on one individual.

Ms. Schrader-Frechette has done her math correctly, but she seems out of touch with reality. The absurdity of her example becomes plain if we consider something a bit more familiar. Imagine a town with 715 houses, in which the average annual precipitation is 15 inches; one house receives 10,000 inches per year, and the remaining 714 houses receive 1 inch per year. Who would give serious consideration to a scenario like that?

Ms. Schrader-Frechette also betrays her ignorance of health physics by characterizing a 10,000 millirem dose as "fatal". Lethal doses are typically 40 to 50 times larger.

It seems to me that the Sun's reporters and editors need to exercise their critical thinking skills a bit more vigorously when evaluating what is worth printing. For more information on radiation and its health effects, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

An Unexpected Benefit of Nuclear Energy

Although it may be helpful in reducing global warming, the Finns have now shown that nuclear power can provide an additional benefit by producing local warming. Bloomberg.com reports:

In the shadow of the Olkiluoto nuclear power station in western Finland, Latvian zilga grapes will this year produce about 80 bottles of red wine, said Jukka Huttunen, who cultivates the vineyard next to the facility's two reactors.

The vines are nourished by the warm water from the plant's cooling system, allowing grapes to thrive in a country that's on the same latitude as Alaska. Teollisuuden Voima Oy, the Finnish utility that owns the plant, started making wine as an experiment into uses for excess heat generated by nuclear energy. The company is now expanding production, said Huttunen.

Sea water used in the cooling process warms up by 13 degrees Celsius (55 degrees Fahrenheit) and is channeled through the 1,000 square-meter (10,764 square-feet) vineyard on its way back to the Gulf of Bothia. That helps kick-start the growing season three months earlier than usual and allows vines to thrive in normally hostile Finnish soil, according to [Olli-Pekka] Luhta [, the environmental manager for Olkiluoto].
If the Finns can do this with reactors of Russian design, just think of the possibilities when they start operating their French-designed EPR.

Technorati tags: , , , , , Wine, ,

ABC News Posts Test Reactor Story

The story we've been anticipating since late August on security at test and research reactors by ABC News has just been posted over at the network's Web site. I've only taken a cursory look at the story so far, but needless to say it fails to mention many of the details we've uncovered in the last few weeks -- including the fact that personnel at a number of reactors alerted the NRC to the presence of the interns, and the fact that they were acting suspiciously and asking questions about security.

Once again, for those of you concerned specifically with the test and research reactors, here's a statement from my NEI colleague Felix Killar on exactly what the situation is as it stands today:

Every research reactor has multiple layers and techniques of security. These include surveillance and detection equipment, and alarms with an armed security force response.

University research reactors are licensed and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since 9/11, the NRC has required site-specific security enhancements for reactors of two megawatts of generating capacity and greater, and for reactors of less than two megawatts of capacity. There continues to be coordination between the NRC and the research reactor community on ways to further enhance security commensurate with the small volumes of irradiated fuel in these reactors. A second round of security requirements from the NRC is expected in the near future.

All of the uranium fuel at research reactors is either in the reactor vessel or has been irradiated in the reactor and is securely stored. For this reason, even a suicidal terrorist who might be willing to risk lethal exposure to steal this material – which is typically quite heavy – would have to spend some period of time trying to steal it. The material is not accessible in a way that would allow anyone to make off with that material in 20 or 30 minutes.

The amount of uranium fuel in research reactors – most of which are below ground level – is sufficiently small that even in the event of accident – there is virtually no risk to the general public even in close proximity to the buildings that house the research reactors.
I'll have more in the morning once I get a chance to talk to some of my colleagues, but in the meantime, if you work at any of the research reactors named in the story, please get into contact with us here at NEI Nuclear Notes, as we'd like to hear about what you might have seen when the interns came to visit.

We're sure to see some pickup online, as Drudge is already fronting the story. And be sure to read this reaction from Red State.

UPDATE: Lots of interesting details from today's Kansas City Star (registration required), which talked to officials at Kansas State, Missouri-Columbia and Ohio State:

Posing as prospective graduate students, two young women tried to get inside Kansas State University’s nuclear reactor last summer.

They videotaped the building and asked questions about security, according to reactor workers. But they weren’t terrorists or protesters. Instead, they were part of an undercover team of ABC News interns probing for security weaknesses at reactors on 25 college campuses, including K-State and the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Even before the two women made it to K-State’s reactor, however, their strange behavior had drawn the attention of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Further...

When [Melia] Patria and [Hsing] Wei showed up at the K-State reactor, the staff had a good idea who the women really were. After other campus reactors reported similarly strange visits, federal authorities had figured out that the visitors were actually undercover reporters. The FBI passed the tip along to K-State.

In hopes of proving their suspicions, reactor employees asked the women to pose for a photograph. To get the shot, Cullens said, he had to resort to his own little deception.

“They were playing the flirt card to get information,” he said. “We wanted a picture of them for the FBI, so we flirted back.”

At one point, a reactor researcher asked the women what had drawn them to K-State. One of them, Cullens recalled, said her boyfriend lived in Kansas.

“We asked where, and she sort of pointed off to the southwest and said, ‘Over there,’ ” he said. “We figured there had to be something strange going on.”

And here's more details on the trip the interns took to Ohio State University:

Ohio State University’s reactor was one of the first visited by Wei and Patria. Earle Holland, director of research information, said that the women acted suspiciously and that the staff asked them to leave before the tour ended.

After the women left, the staff called the police, who called the FBI, who called the NRC and Homeland Security.

When you review the ABC News account of the Ohio State visit, there's no mention of the fact that the interns were asked to leave before the tour ended -- just a quote from a security consultant proclaiming that "the system failed". Seems to me that the opposite is actually the case, and that the system worked, which is exactly why authorities were alerted, and many of the institutions involved knew the interns were on their way. More later.

ABC News has posted photos of Wei and Patria at the "Loose Nukes" Web page, along with the rest of the interns. Also, our friend Pat Cleary has cross-posted his Red State item on the story over at the NAM Blog.

UPDATE: My colleague Lisa Stiles-Shell had something to say about this passage from ABC News on their visit to MIT:
An ABC News producer parked a large Ryder truck next to the reactor facility and was not questioned or challenged.
Which led Lisa to write to me:
Yep, they're right. You can drive down that street. Hell, you can LIVE across the street from it and I did. So what? They can't steal the stuff. And there isn't enough material there to cause significant death and destruction even if you dropped a truck full of explosives directly on top of the reactor pool--other than the deaths and destruction from the initial explosion, of course.
Pure, unadulterated hysteria. Sound science nowhere to be found.

UPDATE: NRC has posted a letter to ABC's Brian Ross from Roy Zimmerman of the agency's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response:
Based on our review of your observations, our continuing review of site-specific security enhancements, and our knowledge of the potential risks, we continue to believe that the Nation’s RTRs remain safe and secure. Furthermore, we recently issued letters to each RTR licensee to obtain additional information and emphasize our expectations for maintaining effective RTR security in the current threat environment. In these letters, we requested each RTR to verify its implementation of the previous site-specific security measures and provide additional details. The NRC will review these measures.

Moreover, the radiological consequences of an attack on RTRs would be low due to the small quantities of radioactive material present, the reactor structure and shielding designs, and the safety and security measures in place. Also, attempts to sabotage the facility or steal the nuclear material would trigger an armed response and activate pre-established emergency response plans. Even if a sabotage attack were attempted against an RTR, we are convinced that the potential for significant radiation-related health effects to the public is highly unlikely.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs just linked to the story, but apparently hasn't caught wind of the news that ABC's methods are coming into question. Somebody at Red State is wondering why he hasn't picked up on it yet.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: MIT is now responding to a number of assertions that ABC News made about its visit to that institution's research reactor:
MIT and the MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory take a rigorous approach toward safety and desire to learn from any investigation. However the issues raised by ABC have been thoroughly studied and reviewed. They do not represent security breaches, nor are they issues with which MIT and the reactor lab are unfamiliar.

The floor plans were obtained from a web site unaffiliated with MIT that archives old material previously removed from the web. Material is posted to this site without regard to its currency or accuracy. These plans are also very rudimentary and are not sensitive.

The reactor's operating schedule provides no sensitive information nor can any be inferred from it. In fact, MIT posts the operating schedule online because, as one of the foremost research reactor labs in the country, it provides researchers at MIT and at other universities with the information essential for planning scientific experiments at the laboratory.

With respect to the truck, it did not actually enter the secure perimeter around the reactor. The perimeter distances have been confirmed by an independent study commissioned by MIT to assess the impact of possible terrorist actions against the MIT reactor following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The study ran through all the likely scenarios of attack and concluded that the core of the MIT research reactor would not be breached. The study determined that even in the unlikely event that the exterior building surrounding the reactor core was damaged, the core itself would not be harmed and there would be no release of radiation. It also determined that a large bomb going off in a truck parked within even a few feet of the reactor building would not breach the containment of the reactor's core.

MIT's reactor's core is quite small, about the size of a dormitory refrigerator, and is fully enclosed in a radiation-shielded structure consisting of several feet of concrete and other materials, which itself is housed within the containment building comprising different layers of concrete and steel, all of which would be nearly impossible to breach at one time.

MIT's director of security and police chief, John Difava, is a former superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police force who was appointed by the governor to direct and coordinate security at Logan Airport following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He works with law enforcement officials at the local, state and federal levels on security plans for MIT's research reactor.

"In the event of any sort of attack, I would choose to be in the reactor lab because the containment building is the safest place on campus," said Difava.

For a copy of MIT's letter to ABC News, click here (PDF). The Boston Business Journal has already picked up on the MIT statement.

ANOTHER UPDATE: TVNewser picks up the threads.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Why Are We Following "Loose Nukes" ?

One of my readers who hasn't been following our coverage of the ABC News series, "Loose Nukes on Main Street" from the beginning has asked me for a recap on why we think that it's important.

He's right to ask. More often than not, it's easy to get caught up in the moment on a blog, and to forget about the big picture. What I'll try to do next is pull back a little bit, and help bring the story into better focus for those of you who haven't been with us from the start.

Here goes:

Back at the end of August, one of my colleagues here at NEI pointed me to an exchange of letters between the NRC and Tawfik Raby and Seymour Weiss, co-chairs of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors:

Members of TRTR have identified to the NRC and law enforcement agencies the suspicious behavior of individuals who were visiting their facilities. NRC informed TRTR that these visits may have been part of a summer intern program that ABC News and other corporations were conducting related to investigative reporting.

TRTR believes that the security measures currently in place have worked and that the public health and safety have not been compromised. The research reactor community picked up on the recurrent visits by these individuals and their unusual interest in security matters very rapidly and acted accordingly.

One of the primary missions of these facilities is to inform and educate members of the public on nuclear technology matters, including school children and others. Public tours are a great asset to the community and the nation and should be continued in a prudent way. We are convinced that the TRTRs are safe and secure; however, we have urged each of our facilities to continue to be diligent and vigilant in admitting visitors and conducting tours.
In other words, the individuals from ABC News (later discovered to be interns) went undercover to gain access to the reactor facilities -- something these facilities do regularly in order to maintain a positive relationship with their neighbors both on and off campus -- something that ABC failed to mention when they first aired the video from the report on Monday night.

In fact, the video left the decided impression that ABC was able to gain access to these buildings without being challenged or detected, something that seems to be contradicted by the letter from Raby and Weiss.

Later in a response, David B. Matthews, Director of the Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs in NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation wrote:
The NRC continues to believe that trying to gain access to reactor facilities under potentially suspicious circumstances, especially in the current threat environment, creates unnecessary concerns, diverts limited resources, and inappropriately distracts from high priority law enforcement activities.
The bottom line here should be pretty clear: ABC seems to be saying that they were able to take their video without being detected, when the exact opposite was the case.

A few weeks later, Inside NRC (subscription required) published an extensive story detailing some of the methods the interns used to conduct their investigation. Here's what I wrote then:
Some of the most illuminating details of the story came from Earl Holland, director of research communications at Ohio State University. Because university officials are regarded as public officials under Ohio law Holland said, the interns violated state law because, "it is illegal for a person to use deception in interacting with a public official." Inside NRC reported that no charges had been filed.
And then there was this choice exchange between Holland and one of the interns when she did a followup interview after her alleged "undercover" visit to Ohio State:
But at one point during the conversation, he said he told her that her question had been answered by the reactor staff during her June 22 visit. "There was a pregnant pause for about 15 or 20 seconds" before she acknowledged that she had been at the site, he said.

Holland said he responded, "You were wearing a denim skirt and a red top and you have dark brown hair, and you said this, and you said that, and here's the license number of your car."
But that isn't all. Here's an account from the ABC News message board that was also mentioned by Inside NRC calling some of the reporting into question:
My favorite was how ABC claimed that they were let into one facility by the "gardner". What they failed to realize was that this "gardner" was the director of the facility, a professor emeritus of chemistry and a licensed senior operator!

Whatever. The public will be scared regardless of the "truth".
Further...
The "gardener" is a retired employee of the facility who still holds an SRO license and works part-time hours. He volunteers his time keeping the ornamental flowers and shrubs around the facility looking nice, things he planted on his own time and tends just to help out making the place look nicer for the public and the employees. Then these kids go and claim he's a gardener who has a key for the reactor facility! Trying to smear the university and the reactor facility with those kinds of "facts". What is the old saying about no good deed going unpunished?

I always thought one thing a good journalist does is check their facts. In this case, there was no attempt to do that. ABC News was ready to run with this story of the nuclear "gardner", and had to be proactivity corrected by the university PR contact. They the PR person hadn't done that the story would have been run and come off as nothing more than a third-rate hatchet job of a smear. Is this what they're teaching kids in these "internship" programs and journalism "schools", how to be sloppy and lazy?
Beginning to get the picture? 1)ABC News seems to be giving the impression that they were able to penetrate these facilities on their own, when they actually took tours that any member of the public is eligible to take. 2)Rather than conducting these trips in a covert manner, the ABC News interns were monitored from the beginning across multiple facilities -- hardly a lapse in security at all.

And finally, there are some initial indications that there is some seriously sloppy reporting involved that had to be corrected. All in all, we're not terribly hopeful that the story will be anywhere near credible, something my colleague Lisa Stiles-Shell alluded to recently when she dealt with the issue of a car full of interns being able to tail a truck carrying an unspecified cargo of "nuclear waste":
[T]he containers weigh several tens to over a hundred tons each and can only be removed from a truck or railcar by a humongous dedicated crane.

Heck, the truck carrying a crane big enough to pick up and move a 110+ ton used fuel cask would need an escort in itself!

How following a truck for a while translates into "the material could easily be stolen" is well beyond the realm of logic.
What we've got here seems to be a story that's calculated to cause maximum hysteria with a minimal examination of the facts. And that's why we're worried, and why you should be worried too. I hope this helps. According to The Media Drop, the piece on test reactors will be posted online tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. and aired on Prime Time Live on Thursday. Be sure to watch, and come back to NEI Nuclear Notes for reaction.

UPDATE: The Media Drop has picked up on the story.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

International Energy Agency to Spain: Don't Phase out Nuclear

The International Energy Agency is urging Spain to reconsider its decision to phase out nuclear power, in light of security and environmental concerns.

"From a security of supply perspective, it is important that the government develops an analysis of the possible consequences of a nuclear phase-out," said [IEA Executive Director] Claude Mandil.
Click here to read Mandil's full comments.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

European Commission Unveils Waste Research Partnership

The European Commission announced today its plans to develop a public-private partnership that will bring together EU research work on radioactive waste under one umbrella. A joint undertaking is expected to be more cost-efficient than current nuclear waste research practices in Europe. The new framework should be in place at the end of the year:

Research activities will be divided into three main sections: evacuation techniques; separation and transmutation technology and transversal and socio-economic research. A supervisory body, comprising one representative from each member state and one from the Commission, will ensure that the information is circulated and effective political control, by the Council, of the development of the joint undertaking's activities.
Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Columnists Support Nuclear Energy

Support for nuclear energy is a growing trend among columnists at major newspapers, many of whom are self-described environmentalists.

“As a radical environmentalist, I support Progress Energy’s plans to build a nuclear power plant in Florida,” columnist Mike Thomas wrote in the Oct. 11 edition of the Orlando Sentinel.

Michael Fumento, the environment columnists for Scripps Howard News Service, wrote in September that “environmentalists think cheap food and housing are great, yet somehow affordable energy from any source is evil. Saintliness, to them, is achieved by paying through the nose for extravagantly inefficient power sources like windmills and solar panels. Well, let them build a windmill in their backyards. The rest of us need an exorcism from the demons of anti-nuclear hysteria.”

Finally, Oregonian columnist David Reinhard back in June wrote the following in his column entitled At Long Last, It’s Nuclear Option Time: “…as fears about greenhouse gases and global warming grow – and the practical problem of filling the world’s energy needs with non-emission sources becomes ever more apparent – today’s nuclear environmentalists may come to be seen as prophets.”

This does not come as much of a surprise. A May nationwide survey of adults by Bisconti Research Inc./NOP World revealed that 71 percent of environmentalists favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to generate electricity.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Another LA Blackout

Still waiting on details...

UPDATE: More details here.

Slovakia Considers New Nuclear

Experts in Slovakia are looking ahead and considering new nuclear plant construction.

"With another nuclear power station we would secure safe and efficient energy supplies, cover increasing demand for energy, availability of energy resources in Slovakia and reduce pollution in Slovakia," [said Vladimír Slugeň, head of the Slovak Nuclear Society].
Slovakia currently has two active nuclear facilities.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

U.K. PM Blair: Debate on Nuclear Energy Should Be 'Conducted with an open mind.'

From 10 Downing Street:

Tony Blair insisted that he would take 'whatever decisions were right for this country' when choosing the future direction of the UK's energy supplies.

Speaking at his monthly press conference in Downing Street, the PM said the debate on whether to build new nuclear plants should be 'conducted with an open mind by everybody.'

But evidence of global warming was 'too strong to ignore', he added, and this put the issue of energy 'centre stage'

"For a country like Britain, our present nuclear power is going to be phased out over 10-15 years. We have a very ambitious renewables target and there are obviously issues there that we have got to address and get right.'

"I am not pre-empting the debate at all. We will take whatever decisions are right for the country.''
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , United Kingdom

Why is ABC News Erasing Messages in the "Loose Nukes" Forum?

Just found the following message in the discussion threads on the ABC News series, "Loose Nukes on Main Street":

There was a post today on spent nuclear fuel shipments and one yesterday on a different topic that have since disappeared. They were both on topic and did not break any rules.
I can confirm that the same thing happened to me, but I didn't think much of it as I had posted the same information twice in two different threads -- but this is a whole different issue entirely.

The post that individual is referring to referenced the fact that most shipments of nuclear material are delivered in large, secure containers that can't just be hauled off the side of the road without a whole lot of effort. And getting these containers open is another story entirely.

In any case, this is pretty interesting, and I'll keep following it throughout the day.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

What's The Real Cost of Overregulation?

That's a question our friend Pat Cleary of the NAM Blog asked yesterday:

As we've noted in this space before, the government's own Energy Information Administration has predicted that energy costs will continue to soar in the months ahead. The cost for people to stay warm this winter in the Northeast and the Midwest are expected to be nothing short of astronomical, a burden that falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class. Because we can see this storm cloud coming (in fact, it's already here), we just wanted to remind everyone that this country's energy policy has been held hostage for years by a small band of extreme environmentalists:

-- They have discouraged the use of coal in spite of the fact that our clean coal technology leads the world and in spite of the fact that our coal reserves exceed (in BTU's) all the world's oil reserves;

-- They've resisted the development of nuclear power. We've not built a nuclear plant in this country since the 70's. France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear. They've built 58 nuclear plants since the 70's.

-- There are about 50 liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in the world. Exactly 5 are in the US. (Japan has 23.) The permitting process for building them here is both cumbersome and expensive.

-- Environmentalists have resisted further exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a parcel the size of the state of South Carolina, where drilling will occur in a footprint the size of Dulles Airport. What's their plan?
That's a question we've asked in another context, but we're not holding our breath waiting for an answer.

We should note that Pat has cross-posted these thoughts over at Red State, where they've kicked up quite a bit of dust.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Following "Loose Nukes" on ABC News

I've been paging through the ABC News message board attached to this story, and some of the reaction from folks there can't be encouraging for the people who put together the series. Here are some choice reactions:

Can ABC and the students they used to gain access to the facilities admit that they lied to gain entry? That they used tactics and methods that would NEVER result in danger to the public? Why does ABC want to cut or dramatically reduce the research (including cancer and environmental research) performed at these research reactors?

Sad, really.
But wait, there's more:
One would have thought that the mainstream media would have learned it's lesson from the Dan Rather/fake National Guard documents debacle. Using dishonest journalistic techniques to push a crusading agenda is not the way for the mainstream press to regain lost credibility. Having your story become THE story is the surest way to end up with egg on your face. Is ABC News thinking of hiring Mary Mapes? Maybe they already have?
And it gets better:
ABC needs to come up with some more original topics for reporting. This kind of fearmongering is just plain wrong. I guess they've exhausted every possible angle on the killer hurricane subject, so now they have to move on to something else in order to scare viewers into watching and giving them the ratings they want. Sheesh.
For our coverage of this report, and the questionable reporting techniques used by ABC's crack group of interns, start here and follow the links. I had my TiVo set up to record the segment from today's edition of Good Morning America, and will have more on that segment tonight.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's some text from my NEI colleague Felix Killar that's pertinent to the research reactor portion of the ABC series:
Every research reactor has multiple layers and techniques of security. These include surveillance and detection equipment, and alarms with an armed security force response.

University research reactors are licensed and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since 9/11, the NRC has required site-specific security enhancements for reactors of two megawatts of generating capacity and greater, and for reactors of less than two megawatts of capacity. There continues to be coordination between the NRC and the research reactor community on ways to further enhance security commensurate with the small volumes of irradiated fuel in these reactors. A second round of security requirements from the NRC is expected in the near future.

All of the uranium fuel at research reactors is either in the reactor vessel or has been irradiated in the reactor and is securely stored. For this reason, even a suicidal terrorist who might be willing to risk lethal exposure to steal this material – which is typically quite heavy – would have to spend some period of time trying to steal it. The material is not accessible in a way that would allow anyone to make off with that material in 20 or 30 minutes.

The amount of uranium fuel in research reactors – most of which are below ground level – is sufficiently small that even in the event of accident – there is virtually no risk to the general public even in close proximity to the buildings that house the research reactors.
Definitely something to keep in mind.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: And speaking of research reactors...

LINK UPDATE: Here are a couple of blogs who are linking to the ABC content: Political Pit Bull and TVNewser.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Monday, October 10, 2005

ABC News Intern Update

It looks as if ABC News is going to air the first part of its "Loose Nukes on Main Street" story this evening on today's edition of ABC World News Tonight. As we've mentioned before, what we've seen so far doesn't lend us a whole lot of confidence that we're going to see anything but a well-packaged piece of sensationalism -- click here to see exactly what I'm talking about.

Come back later this evening after I've had a chance to view the report.

UPDATE: ABC News just aired a report on World News Tonight that served as more of an overview for the series, and didn't share too many details. Click here for the text version of the story that aired tonight. Click here for the home page for the series at ABC News.com. Finally, click here to see photos of the ABC News interns who took part in the piece of the investigation that dealt with the test reactors. To review, their actions in pursuit of the story weren't exactly the most professional. Here's what Earl Holland of Ohio State University told Inside NEC about his experiences with an intern that tried to catch Holland trying to contradict himself during a followup interview:

But at one point during the conversation, he said he told her that her question had been answered by the reactor staff during her June 22 visit. "There was a pregnant pause for about 15 or 20 seconds" before she acknowledged that she had been at the site, he said.

Holland said he responded, "You were wearing a denim skirt and a red top and you have dark brown hair, and you said this, and you said that, and here's the license number of your car."
It doesn't sound to me like these "undercover" reporters actually passed unnoticed. We'll have more later in the week as the reports are issued.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Our friend Stewart Peterson has some other thoughts.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Nuclear Energy Industry Transitions

Christopher Clark has been named chairman designate of Urenco Group. Clark will replace the current chairman, Neville Chamberlain, Jan. 1, 2006.

Entergy Corp. has elected former Congressman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) to its board of directors. Tauzin is the former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

TXU Corp. has elected Glenn Tilton and Leonard Roberts to its board of directors. They replace Erle Nye and Herbert Richardson, who are retiring.

The U.S. Department of Energy has named Carl Bauer director of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bauer has served as acting director of NETL since February 2005, when Rita Bajura retired from the post. Bauer had served as deputy director since October 2003.

Yukiya Amano, Japan's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been elected chairman of the agency's board of governors for 2005 -- 06. He will succeed Ingrid Hall of Canada. Amano has served as director of the science and nuclear energy divisions within Japan's Foreign Ministry, and as director-general of the disarmament, nonproliferation and science department.

Joseph Maloney will resign as secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trade Department, effective this month. Maloney had been secretary-treasurer since January 2000.

General Dynamics has elected Jeffrey Kudlac a vice president of the corporation.

Patrick Henn will become chief financial officer of Indus International Inc. on Oct. 13.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Friday, October 07, 2005

Revisiting RMI and Amory Lovins

Last Friday, my colleague Eric McErlain informed me that Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, had responded to a post I wrote back in July titled Rocky Mountain’s Real-World Data Blunders:

If David Bradish would kindly read what I wrote more carefully, and look up its heavily documented backup paper (www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#E05-08), he'll find he's wrong on every count. Our data were global, not U.S.-specific, and hence reflect global market conditions including fuel prices. All technologies' capacity factors are empirical. The capacity graph's URL points to the TWh/y as well as the GW graphs and data, carefully documented to the technology-specific data from the respective industries (and IAEA, WNA, IEA, etc); the TWh/y and GW graphs (total, not incremental) are in the fall 05 RMI newsletter on www.rmi.org. Post-2010 world nuclear capacity goes down, not up, because retirements overwhelm additions: see Schneider & Froggatt, Nucl. Eng. Intl. pp. 36-38, June 2005. And contrary to a later comment, our analysis explicitly excludes all big hydro (>10 MWe).
Since Mr. Lovins asked, I went back and checked my work. Here's what I found:

My 1st count:
Nuclear power plants’ capacity factor (how efficient a plant generates electricity) is the highest of any fuel source (90.5%). Renewables are in the 30% range, natural gas for cogeneration is about 40%.
This issue wasn’t addressed in the backup paper that Lovins references. It was found in the Methodology link under National Policy for Insecurity. RMI’s capacity factors for renewables and cogeneration differed from mine, but there, nuclear energy still had the highest capacity factor.

2nd count:
The second reason the graph is misleading is because of yearly capacity increases. The reader only sees what was built in that year. What you should see in the graph is the total operating capacity in existence today.
No, this count still holds. To find the graph, go to the fifth page of Lovins' analysis. The Global Additions of Electrical Generating Capacity graph below deceives the reader because you are not showing the total additions added. When looking at the graph again, it appears nuclear dominated all other sources in capacity additions from 1990 – 2004 -- which isn't a conclusion I thought Lovins would like. Also, if the graph is looking at Net New Electrical Capacity, how does nuclear go into negatives in 1998?


3rd count:
The third reason the graph is misleading is because it uses five different sources for its information.
This I did get wrong. It wasn’t five different sources, it was eight. It's important to remember that every source does not calculate their data on the same basis. When you start using multiple sources, the graph and its data lose their integrity. When you mix eight different sources together, that problem only becomes more pronounced.

4th count:
The fourth and final reason the graph is misleading is because it stops at 2010.
The last time I checked, the world did not plan to stop in 2010. Just because the capacity additions in RMI's graph for nuclear are projected lower than wind and cogeneration, it does not mean that beyond 2010 they still will be.

When going back through my post, I found Mr. Lovins was correct about using global data versus U.S. All of his points used world figures, while most of my references were U.S specific.

After spending a couple of days checking out Mr. Lovins’ new analysis from the link in his comment, there are several issues I would like to discuss: costs, deployment and climate change.

Costs

Throughout the analysis, the author claims that nuclear power has no future because of its “bad economics.” Mr. Lovins bases nuclear’s entire economic case on one study done by MIT. Yet the study's purpose was to give an analysis of how and why nuclear power needs to be “an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants.”

The first page of Lovins' new analysis displays the graph (below) of costs for each fuel. Many sources were used and many numbers were manipulated. His numbers could be exactly right but when someone has a preset bias and then manipulates numbers noted in the Appendix on page 18, then the graph and data becomes very questionable.

To dispute Mr. Lovins’ economic figures I’ve got one and only one source that shows the levelized costs of each fuel globally. The only data manipulated was by the authors who applied the same level of scrutiny and objectivity to each fuel source. This data is from the International Energy Agency and the report is titled Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. Here’s what the