NEI Nuclear Notes

Over the past week or so at Grist, it’s been hit-jobs galore against nuclear. A fellow by the name of Arne Jungjohann published four negative pieces loaded with jaded contentions to stir up discussion. Later in the campaign, another fellow by the name of Paul Gipe brought up a flawed study on nuclear costs and risks to add to Grist’s polemic. Here is the first of what will be a 3-part series of responses: Grist’s Part 1 - Why is the United States so obsessed with nuclear power? To begin, here’s Mr. Jungjohann’s dramatic start to his series : Fukushima provides enough grounds to take every single nuclear power plant on the face of the Earth off-line. Regardless of whether the cause is an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood, a plane crash, a terrorist attack, or simple human error, failure of the emergency power system leads to uncontrollable consequences. Enough grounds? Uncontrollable consequences? Although Fukushima Daiichi is still recovering, an historical tsunami is the th...

According to EPA’s core policy analysis of Senators Kerry and Lieberman’s proposed legislation released yesterday , nuclear energy is projected to generate 44.2% of the US’ electricity in 2050, more than any other source. Total nuclear capacity is projected to more than double from 101 gigawatts in 2010 to 256 gigawatts in 2050 (assuming 90% capacity factor). This means that if all existing operating plants in the US retire at 60 years, the US will need to build another 253 GW or 181 new plants (assuming 1,400 MW each). There are not many quotes for nuclear in the two reports at the link above, but the good numbers below are found in their data tables in the zip folder. US Electricity Generation Stats IGCC – integrated gasification combined cycle coal plants, CCS – carbon capture and sequestration, MSW – municipal solid waste, CC – combined cycle gas plants For comparison, EPA’s analysis last summer of the Waxman/Markey House bill projected the need for 262 GW of nuclear power ...

Yesterday, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, General Electric’s Jeff Immelt and other big name CEOs who are members of the American Energy Innovation Council released a report that makes five important recommendations for US energy policy . Why did they do this? As business leaders, we feel that America’s current energy system is deficient in ways that cause serious harm to our economy, our national security, and our environment. To correct these deficiencies, we must make a serious commitment to modernizing our energy system with cleaner, more efficient technologies. Such a commitment should include both robust, public investments in innovative energy technologies as well as policy reforms to deploy these technologies on a large scale. By tapping America’s entrepreneurial spirit and longstanding leadership in technology innovation, we can set a course for a prosperous, sustainable economy—and take control of our energy future. Is nuclear included as an innovative energy technology?...

John Wheeler at This Week in Nuclear keeps hitting hard against New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation: In my further research on this topic I discovered a damming piece of evidence that proves NY State is giving preferential treatment to fossil fuels while at the same time imposing unfair regulations on neighboring nuclear energy facilities, the largest competitors to fossil fuels. Stop by for the whole story .

Since the President’s support for nuclear was made clear at the State of the Union, our nuclear critics have dramatically ramped up their opposition to nuclear, particularly on loan guarantees. Besides continuously repeating the debunked 50 percent default rate for nuclear , one detail often neglected by our critics is how much loan volume is proposed as well as currently available for various technologies. Below is a slide used by Jonathan Silver, Executive Director of the Loan Guarantee Program Office, in a briefing on his Office’s 2011 budget. Currently, efficiency and renewables have $52.3 billion in loan volume, advanced vehicles have $25B, nuclear has $20.5B, and the fossil and fossil/EERE mix have $12.0B. If the President’s budget proposal is passed as is, nuclear will have almost as much loan volume as efficiency and renewables. Maybe one of the reasons our nuclear critics neglect to mention this fact is because the proposed loan volume for nuclear makes it about equal ...

Mr. Elliott Negin, media director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, published the same jaded piece at Seeking Alpha and Greentech Media on how nuclear power is “Too Costly to Revive.” He begins by painting a somewhat rosy picture of the nuclear industry but then begins to dish it out by discussing the “industry’s Achilles’ heel” (cost of construction). The nuclear industry likes to point out that it has low production costs, which it does. What it doesn't mention, however, are its rapidly escalating capital costs, those associated with paying the cost of plant construction, including financing. Well, we like to tout the good cost numbers of nuclear and of course our critics like to point out the not-so-good numbers. So which is it? According to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 released last month, nuclear’s estimated costs are definitely competitive with other technologies . If you look at the total levelized unsubsidized costs of the emission-free technologie...

Barry Brook published a great piece on the contradictory thinking of anti-nuclear environmentalists . It was posted a few days ago and is now up to almost 100 comments. He’s found 32 hypocrisies so far (with the help of others) and below is a taste of a few: 1. They claim renewables can replace fossil fuels, then can’t see the problem with leaning on fossil fuel gas to back them up when they fail to do so. 2. They claim nuclear can’t load follow, but ignore the fact that renewables can’t supply on-demand. (They also say nuclear can’t load follow, but forget that nuclear submarines… work). 3. They excuse gas for emitting 50% less CO2 than coal when producing electricity, but won’t accept nuclear, which emits 100% less CO2 than coal. 4. They claim we don’t need baseload power, then eagerly promote renewable baseload alternatives e.g., geothermal and solar with heat storage. … 20. If someone like me comes out supporting nuclear power, then I’m no longer worth lis...

In The American magazine, Vaclav Smil (a Distinguished Professor at the University of Manitoba) wrote a "big idea" piece titled " Moore’s Curse and the Great Energy Delusion " (nothing to do with Patrick Moore). Smil's piece rebuts Al Gore's claim that the US can completely transition to wind and solar in ten years, but also goes on to convey the bigger idea which is that energy transitions take decades to happen not years. Below are many nuggets from his piece that readers will enjoy. (I almost pasted the whole thing because I think it's that good but of course you readers may not go to the article then.) Enjoy! During the early 1970s we were told by the promoters of nuclear energy that by the year 2000 America’s coal-based electricity generation plants would be relics of the past and that all electricity would come from nuclear fission. What’s more, we were told that the first generation fission reactors would by then be on their way out, replaced by...

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) hosted their annual energy conference last Saturday with keynote speakers including MIT's President Susan Hockfield and Duke's CEO James Rogers . The event showcased many panelists including NEI's Vice President Richard Myers . Myers passed along the slide below from one of the panelists John Gilbertson - Managing Director at Goldman Sachs. I would say the slide is pretty self-explanatory. Obviously Wall Street investors aren't bearish on nuclear utilities.

The Energy Information Administration last Wednesday released it's AEO 2008 Overview (pdf). This is a preview to an annual report (due out in February) which studies and forecasts the energy supply and demand fundamentals out to 2030. Questions they attempt to answer each year are: how much energy will the U.S. be consuming in the future? how fast will the U.S. GDP grow? will renewables have an increased role to play? what happens to fossil fuels? etc. One of the topics NEI pays close attention to, of course, is the role EIA sees nuclear power playing over the next several decades. According to the report, by 2030, 20 GW of new nuclear capacity are projected to be built as well as 2.7 GW in uprates and 4.5 GW in retirements. Total nuclear capacity in 2030 is projected to increase to 118.8 GW from today's 100.3 GW. This year's nuclear projection is a step up from last year's report which forecasted nuclear will only increase to 112.6 GW by 2030. Prior to 2006, nuclea...

We all know that the fuel required for renewable sources of energy are virtually limitless, hence the name. But what about the essential components that renewables like wind turbines and solar panels rely on to function? An article from The Economist (subscription required) highlights several production problems for the "clean-tech boom" : THESE should be heady times for Vestas, a Danish firm that makes more than a quarter of the world's wind turbines. The wind business is booming, and the company said last week that it had swung into profit in 2006, thanks to an 8% rise in revenue. But there is “significant unexploited production capacity”, Vestas says, due to shortages of high-quality turbine components. Other companies grumble about a lack of gearboxes and bearings. Wind firms' worries echo those in the solar-power business, which is also booming but where a shortage of polysilicon has hampered growth. Silicon is made from sand, which is abundant, but there are n...