NEI Nuclear Notes

Richard Myers The following post was submitted by Richard Myers, NEI’s vice president of policy development, planning and supplier programs. It addresses the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with Taiwan submitted to Congress for review on Jan. 7. The agreement was signed by the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. The agreement will be reviewed by Congress for 90 days of continuous session before entering into force.  The U.S. nuclear energy industry thanks the Obama Administration for concluding negotiation of an agreement to continue nuclear energy cooperation between the United States and Taiwan. The industry is eager for the renewal of the agreement for cooperation with this longstanding strategic partner. U.S. exports of nuclear technology, equipment and services to Taiwan support thousands of U.S. jobs. Two General Electric nuclear energy facilities are under construction in Taiwan at Lungmen, and other U.S. c...

South Carolinian and Missourian leaders came forward this week to tout the economic benefits of new nuclear reactors, a sign of their growing support for further developing new plants in their states. The positive statements come at a time when the bidding continues to heat up for investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to participate in the first public-private partnership to develop and deploy small nuclear reactors (SMRs) . Today, S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley held a joint press conference with representatives from Holtec International, SCE&G and AREVA on how small reactor technology could bring additional jobs and manufacturing to the Southern state. The Aiken Standard reports : Deployment of SMRs at SRS [ Savannah River Site ] would "offer South Carolina a unique opportunity to become a leader in the next generation of nuclear reactor manufacturing," according to a press release from the governor's office. Savannah River Nuclear Solution...

The National Association of Manufacturers ’ board of directors approved new energy and resources policy language in a meeting last month. The updated policy language reflects views held by the association’s members, which represent a broad array of leaders within the manufacturing sector. On the topic of nuclear energy, the updated language says: Adopted Winter 2012 Effective until Winter 2016 1.07. Nuclear Energy Nuclear power is a safe and vital source of cost-effective base-load electricity that does not emit criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is the largest source of non-emitting power generation in the United States and the second largest source of electricity, supplying approximately 20 percent of the nation's power. The NAM supports the continued development and operation of nuclear energy consistent with the protection of public health and safety. Nuclear energy helps stabilize the price of electricity while maintainin...

In case you missed the tweets from @SouthernCompany or @EnergyPressSec yesterday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu   toured the site where two new reactors are being built at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Ga. Reconfirming his commitment to nuclear energy, the Nobel Laureate spoke to the more than 500 workers already on site on the need to build new nuclear plants to create jobs for American workers and boost U.S. competitiveness . “In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a blueprint for an American economy that is built to last and develops every available source of American energy,” said Secretary Chu. “Nuclear power is an important part of that blueprint. The work being done in Georgia and at research organizations like Oak Ridge National Laboratory is helping restore American leadership in the global race for the nuclear energy jobs of tomorrow.” Just how many new jobs is Secretary Chu talking about? Business Week says : About 1,700 workers are alrea...

Southern Co. has launched a new print advertising campaign to highlight some of the economic benefits the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant brings to the Georgia area. I particularly like the image--the sun rising on the construction site for Vogtle units 3 and 4. It sheds a hopeful light on a topic that I discussed in a blog post earlier this week: Is the Future Outlook for Nuclear Energy Bright? For the latest on construction at the site, see Southern Company’s website .

I hear it all the time lately. “What’s happening to American technology? Are we losing our edge?” No more space shuttle . Steve Jobs logging off for good . The next generation space telescope on the chopping block. So, it was with no small satisfaction last week that I listened into an NRC hearing on combined construction and operating license for new reactors at the V.C. Summer site in South Carolina. Perhaps the best bit was Stephen Byrne, executive vice president of South Carolina Electricity and Gas, explaining why a utility executive would opt to build a new nuclear power plant . “We choose nuclear over other energy alternatives for four main reasons. First, the need for baseload power. The new units will help meet state regulatory reserve margin requirements. Second, cost. Nuclear is competitive with other baseload options when evaluated over its 40-year design life. Third is fuel diversity, adding units 2 and 3 [at V.C. Summer] will increase the share of nuclear in o...

Several governors and senators from Southern states met this week at the Southern States Energy Board to discuss topics such as oil and gas development, nuclear energy legislation and Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)  and Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) were among the participants who led the conversation on nuclear energy issues. Gov. Barbour voiced his support for building another nuclear energy plant in Mississippi. Candidly, we’d love to have another nuclear power plant. … We don’t have, ‘Not in my backyard.’ We have, ‘Please in my backyard.’ Gov. Barbour’s support for nuclear energy is not unfounded, as Mississippi’s Grand Gulf 1 nuclear energy plant makes up more than 17 percent of the state’s total electricity generation and 100 percent of the state’s total emission-free electricity. The state relies heavily on natural gas (54 percent), which can cause steep fluctuations on electricity prices for the state’s resident...

West Virginia is the largest coal producer east of the Mississippi and generates nearly all of its electricity with coal-fired plants . Even so, some state legislators, mindful of both environmental and economic factors, think the state's 1996 ban on nuclear energy should be overturned. Sen. Brooks McCabe says the ban is inconsistent with West Virginia's position as an “energy state”: If we’re an energy state, we ought to say we’re an energy state and not exclude anyone. While McCabe doesn’t see a nuclear plant in West Virginia’s future anytime soon, even if the ban were overturned, he believes the United States needs to become self-sufficient where energy is concerned and that “nuclear will have some part of that equation.” In particular, he envisions small, scalable nuclear plants being built: I would suggest that at some point in the future … you’re going to see much smaller, in some ways more mobile, nuclear power plants—little mini-plants, almost like you see in some of ...

Over the past number of weeks, you’ve seen us highlight nuclear carnivals at other folks’ blogs. This week we’re hosting it. For those new to the blogosphere, a carnival is when a community of bloggers recap each other’s best posts at a different site every week, month, or whenever. The purpose, of course, is to increase traffic at each other’s sites. Not only that, it gets the community more involved and definitely creates great connections. We have some deep thinkers and writers in the nuclear blogging community and the carnivals definitely show it. To start, Barry Brook at Brave New Climate set the record straight on the world nuclear renaissance : Despite what some may like you to believe, the nuclear renaissance is upon us. Don’t let anyone get away with telling you otherwise — they are badly misleading you. … How about this for some supporting statistics : 29 new reactors, totalling 26 gigawatts of electricity output (operating at high capacity factors without...

It’s funny how nuclear energy can sometimes be sucked into larger geopolitical considerations. Case in point, this week’s proposal by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to create a nuclear power holding company with Ukraine: “We have made massive proposals, referring to generation, nuclear power engineering, and nuclear fuel,” Putin told reporters after a meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev today. Any cooperation may be phased, Putin said after the surprise visit to Kiev. On the face of it, it sounds good for both partners: “Ukraine will get $40 billion to $45 billion of investment from Russia in the next ten years because of a gas agreement reached last week, with fuel supplies subsidized by Russia’s budget, Putin said.” Russia gets “…to take “an active part” in upgrading Ukrainian reactors and will allow Ukrainian partners on the Russian market, Putin said. Nuclear cooperation in third countries is also possible, he said.” But t...

Last week, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) issued a myopic press release dismissing the recent successes of the nuclear industry based only on how many states overturned their ban on building new nuclear plants. From Rod : According to NIRS, there have been six attempts in 2009 by the nuclear industry to overturn existing state laws that effectively ban projects to build new nuclear power plants or the collection of construction work in progress payments (CWIP) before beginning to operate plants in rate regulated states. NIRS has claimed that each of these attempts has failed. The six states listed on the NIRS score card are Kentucky, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Hawaii. Funny enough, Rod found this fact about one of the states that NIRS counted: I learned something by listening to the conference call and the question and answer session on streaming audio that people who read the press release will not learn - Wisconsin has not even had their...

More than a month ago, Mr. Craig Severance wrote about his lively debate on new nuclear costs with NEI’s Leslie Kass and in response, we posted this . The following week, Mr. Severance responded timely to us and now it’s our turn again. We’re on our second round of posts and the debate has gotten into the weeds. The statements on nuclear from Mr. Severance have become more glaring, in my opinion, so that simply letting just a few of the statements go would be a mistake. Besides the needless analogies and repeating literally half of his rebuttal with previous literature, there are some major interpretation issues Mr. Severance assumes in his latest rebuttal that need airing. (Disclaimer: you're about to read a really long post with no pictures and visuals, hope you enjoy and make it through it!) “Black Box” From Mr. Severance's latest post: The NEI fight-back response is welcome in that we are blowing open the "Black Box" of hidden assumptions about the costs of new ...

In case some of you missed it, the Climate Progress blog has picked up a study by Craig Severance, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power [PDF]. The report has quite a number of holes in it, in my opinion, and the biggest hole has to do with a flawed assumption in how the study calculates the cost of electricity from a new nuclear plant. We've been discussing and debating the study over at Climate Progress and the author has been great in responding to most everyone's critiques. So what's the flaw? The study claims that a new nuclear plant's capital costs, when all is said and done, will be about $10,500/kW. Many studies that I'm aware of estimate that a new nuclear plant will cost between $5,000-$8,000/kW for the all-in construction costs. Mr. Severance's capital cost assumptions are quite a bit higher than the highest estimate but whatever. That's not the flaw of the study's cost numbers. The flaw is how the cost of electricity from a new...

The LA Times today published an inaccurate and sloppy editorial stating: "McCain's energy plan misleads the public and ignores the risks of nuclear energy." Nearly every claim in this opinion piece on nuclear energy is either grossly exaggerated or wrong. The editorial also makes several qualitative statements unsupported by facts to play into the fears of its readers. Here are a few: McCain claims that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap, but it is none of the above. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for millenniums, and this country still hasn't developed a practical way to store it. No "practical" way to store the used fuel, huh? I guess the LA Times hasn't heard of Yucca Mountain in Nevada . Congress designated YM, which is in the middle of a desert 100 miles from the nearest city, to store the nuclear industry's used fuel. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just begun reviewing the application submitted by the Department of Energy to build ...

Titled "The Cost of New Generating Capacity in Perspective" found on our Financial Center section at nei.org : Like all new generating capacity, there is considerable uncertainty about the capital cost of new nuclear generating capacity. Credible estimates of overnight capital costs range from $2,400/kWe to as much as $4,540/kWe. This wide variation in costs can be attributed to several factors: uncertainty about escalation of commodity prices and wages, the fact that design work is not complete and, until it is, it will be impossible to produce a precise cost estimate, and some early estimates did not include all the costs involved in the construction of a power plant (see “Understanding the Cost Components of New Generating Capacity,” page 4). While these costs are daunting, it is important to recognize that capital costs are only the starting point for any analysis of new generating capacity. A more accurate measure of economic competitiveness, and one that is more importa...

Tom Farrell appeared on CNBC's Squawk Box yesterday and said Dominion is "trying very hard" to build North Anna Unit 3. That alone was enough for me to gleefully revise my personal talking points on the subject but there was more. "I think our plant will be the first to come on line in more than 30 years." Asked when that would be, Farrell said 2016. Woohoo! A related article is in the Richmond Times-Dispatch .

One thing journalist types like to do is follow up on previous stories to see where they've gotten to, if anywhere. It provides continuity for the reader and, yes, fills space in the newspaper. So, if Mayor Jones decides everyone should have a monkey, then let's see if everyone has gotten one (though avoid monkeys named Caesar - only grief will come from it.) If a cat was a rescued from a tree, let's check up on that darn cat and see if he learned his lesson. So, without further ado: We wrote recently that Bruce Power is looking to build a nuclear power plant in Alberta, though the provincial government is going to convene an expert panel to offer advice on how to proceed. Now, some University of Calgary students have beaten the panel to the punch and stirred up a little controversy: A group of University of Calgary students are causing a stir over their recent conclusion that nuclear energy is a safe and viable option for Alberta. The fourth-year environmental ...

The U.S. wind industry's production tax credit subsidy is set to expire at the end of 2008. The wind industry has received this PTC incentive since 1993 - nearly sixteen years - and it recently has begun to prove its worth. From the American Wind Energy Association : Thanks in part to the PTC, U.S. wind power capacity is now over 16,800 MW—or enough to serve the equivalent of 4.5 million average households—and wind has been the second largest source of new electrical capacity in the nation, behind natural gas, for the past three years. Bravo for the wind industry - they have definitely established themselves. My question now and many others also are wondering is: how long does the wind industry need to receive the PTC incentive? The AWEA still says they need it . Here's Kirk Sorenson's thoughts: I keep reading on environmentalist websites how great wind is because it's supposedly cheaper than nuclear. They also talk about how terrible nuclear power is, with its gover...

From Georgia Power (subsidiary of Southern Co. ): Georgia Power, acting for itself and for Plant Vogtle's co-owners (Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia [MEAG Power], and Dalton Utilities), entered into an Engineering, Procurement and Construction contract (EPC) with a consortium consisting of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and The Shaw Group Inc.'s Power Group for the engineering, procurement and construction of two AP1000 nuclear units with electric generating capacity of approximately 1,100 megawatts each and related facilities. Georgia Power expects to submit the EPC to the Georgia Public Service Commission May 1, 2008 as a self-build option in connection with the company's 2016-2017 capacity request for proposal. ... Congratulations!