Skip to main content

Where Goes Solar, There Goes Nuclear?

wanoThis MIT Technology Review article is good but gets off on the wrong foot:

Politicians are drawing parallels between the $535 million federal loan guarantee issued to bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra and loan guarantees that the U.S. Department of Energy is offering to utilities building new nuclear power plants. But while those nuclear startups could also go bust, experts say U.S. taxpayers are unlikely to take a loss on them. That's because the only reactor projects moving forward are those in a handful of southern states, where laws allow utilities to offload the risk onto state ratepayers.

Offload the risk? All the risk of any large electricity project redounds to the ratepayers – because they pay the bills. What those southern companies are doing is using a method that pays for plant construction as it goes along – which means less money borrowed from banks or paid back to banks – and thus less interest charges for ratepayers to eventually absorb.

Here’s how Southern Co. explains this in relation to the Plant Vogtle project:

  • The cost of the plant will be phased-in over 7 years, versus included in rates over only two years. (Approx. 1.3 percent/yr over 7 years for total of 9 percent, versus approximately 12 percent total over two years.)
  • Customers will avoid paying $300 million in interest charges, thereby saving money over the life of the plant.
  • The in-service cost of the plant will be reduced by nearly $2 billion (30 percent).
  • Total rate increases required to cover the cost of the plant when it goes into service will be nearly 3 percent lower.
  • Preserving utility credit ratings reduces costs for other projects and helps keep customer rates low.

The MIT story is interesting in that it explains how this use of pay-as-you-go differs in regulated and non-regulated states and what the implications of that might be for nuclear energy projects.

It still comes back around to loan guarantees:

While the Solyndra case appears unlikely to be replicated with nuclear loan guarantees, political attacks from Congressional Republicans on the wisdom of loan guarantees for energy projects may, ironically, hurt the prospects for further nuclear projects that many support.

We’ll just have to wait and see, but those Congressional Republicans are as aware of nuclear energy loan guarantees as we are. It doesn’t necessarily follow that where goes solar also goes nuclear.

----

If you’re going to open a new nuclear facility, it makes sense to stress safety.

Hsu said Taipower had incorporated improvements to the project, such as an emergency diesel generator facility, after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant crisis in Japan, triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami that crippled the facility on March 11.

This is in Taiwan. Hsu is Taipower vice president Hsu Hwai-chiung. There’s more on safety:

In line with Ma’s instructions, Hsu said, Taipower would adopt the strictest possible safety standards in handling the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant’s testing and supervisory work.

“We will invite international professional organizations, such as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, to assist with oversight and the plant will go online only once optimal safety is guaranteed,” Hsu said.

In addition to Taipower’s internal controls, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) have also closely monitored the construction of the plant to ensure safety standards are met, Minster of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang said.

And Ma is Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou. The World Association of Nuclear Operators, or WANO, is really stepping up to the plate here. These are the recommendations approved by WANO’s board during its general meeting in October:

These included expanding the scope of WANO's activities; developing a world-wide integrated event response strategy; improving WANO's credibility, including important changes to WANO's peer review process; improving visibility; and improving the quality of all WANO products and services.

This sounded as though WANO was interested in adopting the approach taken by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the nuclear energy industry-created watchdog, into the international sphere. And indeed, that’s at least partly the case:

WANO said that it will also put into place an internal emergency response procedure that clearly defines roles and responsibilities in the event of a nuclear emergency. It will also take additional initiatives of working with other key industry organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

Issues of national sovereignty can easily keep WANO from becoming as effective as it could be, but if the organization’s members allow it latitude, as Taiwan is doing, and WANO is able to gather enough authority around itself, then its potential expands accordingly. It’ll be interested to see how the experience in Taiwan goes.

Sort of an interesting merger of the WANO logo – which is a wireframe world map – and a map showing its main offices.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...