Blatant Reality

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a safety system upgrade to the Oconee Nuclear Station located near Greenville, SC.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved a license amendment request from Duke Energy Carolinas to install an up-to-date computer upgrade of major safety-related systems at the Oconee Nuclear Station, located eight miles north of Seneca on Lake Keowee.

The amended Oconee license gives Duke permission to replace 1970s-era analog, solid-state controls for the plant’s Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Engineered Safeguard Protection System (ESPS). Duke will install Teleperm XS (TXS) digital computer-based equipment, according to a release from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(…)

The NRC staff approved the Oconee amendment after confirming the new system’s ability to meet both safety requirements and NRC cyber-security regulations that isolate the systems and prevent cyber attacks. The staff paid particular attention to the system’s ability to maintain two-way communications between various subsystems and provide diverse control pathways for safety-related commands, as well as the tools used to simulate and validate the system’s performance. NRC staff also inspected Duke’s procedures for the Oconee-specific TXS design and implementation and observed testing of the actual system at production facilities in Germany.

This marks the first NRC approval for a nuclear power plant’s integrated digital RPS and ESPS instrumentation and control system. The agency had previously approved single safety-related digital control applications, such as for the main steam and feed-water isolation system at the Wolf Creek nuclear plant in Kansas.

A couple fun facts about the Oconee station courtesy of Gwyneth Cravens’ book, “Power to Save the World”

• Started producing power in 1973
• By 1981, the plant had paid for its start up costs
• Only nuclear power plant in the country with a hydroelectric backup

Today, I published my first energy article for American Solutions. I am looking to write for them roughly once a week about various energy issues facing our nation. To check out my article about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, click the link above or just read on below.

*****

This past week, a disagreement occurred between the Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag over how much money should be cut from funding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. This disagreement once again brings up the question of what are the United States’ plans for long-term storage of nuclear waste since support for expanding nuclear energy is growing within the public and with policymakers.

Nuclear energy has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past couple years, as evidenced by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission receiving roughly 20 applications to build over 30 reactors in just the past 4 years.

In June 2008, the Yucca Mountain facility submitted a much-anticipated application to build a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste, and the goal of increasing our nuclear energy production levels looked to be achievable.

However, over the past year of the new administration, we have seen conflicting statements and actions concerning increasing nuclear energy production within the United States.

For example, not even a month after the inauguration, the Obama administration announced that it will cut off almost all funding to the Yucca Mountain Facility and instead wants to look into finding a “better solution for management of our nuclear waste.”

With the Yucca Mountain solution taking over 25 years to get to the point where they can even apply to start building the facility, how much longer will the American people have to wait for the Obama administration’s “better solution” to come to fruition?

Of course, their proposed solution has not yet been announced, one year after halting funding for Yucca Mountain. This haphazard discontinuation by the administration of a project that has received previous endorsements from all three branches of the U.S. government contradicts their pro-nuclear energy stance and statements.

Even though recycling the spent nuclear fuel for further use in nuclear reactors should be the ultimate goal, there are those that feel that a long-term nuclear waste repository must first be demonstrated before these reprocessing efforts will be expanded.

That is why this facility, which Congress passed legislation to create in 1982 and was meant to safely store nuclear material from across the country for thousands of years, is necessary if we are to expand the nuclear energy production capacity of the United States

After decades of work and roughly $10 billion spent on research, the country needs a place like Yucca Mountain that is authorized to store 70,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel, and has been rated by the Electric Power Research Institute to safely and securely store up to 570,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

While this may seem like a lot of waste, critics must consider that 0.0007 pounds of nuclear material can produce the same amount of energy as 1,780 pounds of coal. In fact, over the past 50 years of nuclear energy production, only 60,000 metric tons of waste has been produced.

Currently, nuclear power plants are forced to store their nuclear waste on-site. While many argue that the fuel is safely stored at the reactor sites, it is surely less than ideal since these measures were to be a temporary fix rather than a long-term solution like the one Yucca Mountain can offer.

The on-site storage of nuclear waste is very expensive, both for the companies operating the plants and the American taxpayer. Since 1998, the government has been on the hook for paying for many of these on-site storage capabilities, the product of a partial breach of contract signed two decades ago whereby the government would construct a permanent federal facility for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

The DOE has estimated that the cost to the government of on-site storage litigation will be roughly $11 billion by 2020, the year when the Yucca Mountain repository would be complete if positive actions were taken today.

Overall, this recent disagreement between the White House and Secretary Chu highlights the fact that the administration has not upheld its end of the deal. With the cut in funds to the Yucca Mountain repository, the administration promised to quickly set up a panel to find alternatives solutions to our nuclear waste problem, but in the year since the initial cuts, no steps have been taken to do so.

As the months go by and funding is slowly but surely eliminated from this project without any sign of an alternative solution, one has to wonder if the White House truly is serious about expanding our nuclear energy capacity. Regretfully, the administration’s recent actions seem to point to the contrary.

The idea of increasing production will lower the price of each individual item produced is a fairly common in principle. Who knew that this principle could also applied to building nuclear power plants?

Mr. Komanoff re-analyzed the data, concentrating not only on the beginning and the end, but also the middle. He found that while costs rose over the period – he put it at 60 percent – they also fell for certain classes of reactors. Specifically, he said, every time the number of new construction projects doubled in a year, the prices fell by 5.7 percent.

One lesson, he said, was that “building more plants in a short period of time creates a potential to reduce or at least control costs.’’

His findings echo what American utilities say, that building a “first-of-a-kind” plant is expensive and later units are cheaper. But for Mr. Komanoff to reach a similar conclusion is significant, because he was a sharp critic of the industry in the construction boom of the 1980s and is no fan of nuclear power now.

Good news for American nuclear energy companies who are looking to start building more plants. Now if the government can just figure out what to do with storing nuclear waste…

Brazil is looking to expand its nuclear power programs and plans on having a new plant operational by the time they host the FIFA World Soccer Championship in 2014.

The Brazilian government has authorized the company, Electronuclear, to go back to work on the nation’s third nuclear power plant.

 

Work on the Angra 3 reactor, near Rio de Janeiro, has been stalled for 22 years by a lack of money and political issues.

 

But the administration of President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva is turning to nuclear power to meet electricity needs that are growing with the country’s booming economy.

 

“Things have changed a lot, and today it’s clearer to everyone that nuclear energy has a role to play in the Brazilian electrical system, just like the other forms of producing electricity, which can’t be dismissed,” said Leonam Guimaraes, an Electronuclear spokesman.

 

Brazil is the 10th-largest energy consumer in the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It’s the third-largest consumer in the Western Hemisphere, behind the United States and Canada.

 

The two operational nuclear power plants in Brazil supply about 3 percent of the nation’s electricity, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

While the world focuses on Iran and tries to block it from gaining nuclear capabilities, many other countries are looking into gaining nuclear power. At least nine central and southeastern European countries either have nuclear reactors or are planning on getting them soon. The reasons states for going nuclear range from reliability to energy independence. You can see the complete list with each county named here.

It’s about time that McCain gave me something to look forward if he wins the presidency.

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds “to make clean coal a reality,” measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

 

(…)

 

“Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years,” he said. “And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone.”

 

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

 

“We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field,” he conceded.

Powerline Blog has more on this here.

I have probably stated this fact before but the French get roughly 75% of their energy from nuclear power. They have been operating on a mainly nuclear power since the 70s and the lack of media attention this has received should be a sign of just how successful they have been in this respect.

A recent news article by CNN makes the argument that the US should follow the France’s example in order to end our dependency on foreign oil.

When Goldman Sachs analysts suggested last week that oil could hit $200 a barrel, I expected someone somewhere to express horror at the possibility. But the reaction was a tiny, resignation-filled sigh. Relentless fuel-price increases have so exhausted consumers that we don’t have the energy to be outraged anymore. So we feel helpless as we watch oil sprint past the $130 mark on its way to price-prohibitive territory and wonder whether it’s too late to bring back the horse and buggy. Our sense of helplessness is an illusion: There are things we can do. We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making. And inasmuch as we’re willing to stand a little political discomfort, we can get ourselves out.

 

One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It’s one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it’s responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable.

 

It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they’re doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France’s economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn’t been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism.

I don’t normally say this but the French have a good idea here and I think we just might to emulate them this one time.

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how much the government subsidizes different energy sources. The kicker was just how much green energy was costing the American taxpayer.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

 

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

I personally find that absolutely outrageous that the government would be wasting that much money on wind, solar, and clean coal when nuclear power is so “cheap” in comparison. Even the founder of Greenpeace thinks nuclear energy is “green” so why aren’t we focusing on building more nuclear power plants?

I mean, if the government is going to be hellbent of subsidizing something it might as well be something that we can at least get a good return off of.

I don’t know if you have heard about the Utah nuclear waste company that wants to import waste from Italy but now they are becoming one of the largest contributors to several politicians, including one from SC. I’m guessing people aren’t really to hot about the idea of having to ship nuclear waste all the way across the country.

Since 2005, the company’s political action committee, executives and investors have poured nearly $400,000 into congressional campaigns through January, up from about $40,000 in the four previous years, Federal Election Commission reports show.

 

The company’s growing influence in Washington will be tested this year as it tries to kill a bill that would ban the importation of low-level radioactive foreign waste, which would be disposed at its dump in western Utah’s desert.

 

“I’m sure this means many millions of dollars to them, so I’m sure they’re going to be working hard to stop it,” said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the bill’s co-sponsor.

 

EnergySolutions increased lobbyist spending from $680,000 in 2006 to more than $1 million last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

Since Utah has this tiny problem of being a landlocked state, the nuclear waste would obviously have to first make its way through a port. What port is it? Well, as the saying goes, all you have to do is follow the money. Guess where the biggest chunk of money has gone too. None other than South Carolina’s very own Lindsay Graham.

The biggest recipient of EnergySolutions’ recent spending spree is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.

 

Graham has received $24,000 in campaign contributions from EnergySolutions’ PAC and more than $19,000 from company investors and executives since December 2006.

 

He is encouraging the NRC to allow the construction of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina, where EnergySolutions manages the site through which the Italian waste could be imported.

 

The company wants to import the waste through the ports of Charleston, S.C., or New Orleans for processing in Tennessee.

Now I’m not bashing on Senator Graham because I, for one, am all for nuclear energy. Therefore, I know that this problem of shipping nuclear waste from one place to another is a major issue that will have to be dealt with. The fact that Charleston would be the main port for something like this is great because there have been recent reports that Charleston’s port has slowly been receiving less shipments. This will be great to pump some extra cash into the economy.

However, South Carolina’s main source of income is tourism and Charleston is a major tourist city. Therefore, if there were to be an accident dealing with nuclear waste in Charleston, a very vital of the state’s livelihood would be gone. What this means is that even though I am all for nuclear energy and even possibly this Utah deal, there better be some hell of regulations to ensure that everything goes smoothly and safely

Well, you really shouldn’t be. Even with the promise of many more nuclear power plants, the odds are that we will develop new ways to use the nuclear waste. This is all because of the wonders of a capitalistic society.

The gist of it is that since the demand for uranium will increase, the price will increase also. The higher prices of uranium will make it economically feasible to find new ways to process the waste that could be potentially cheaper than obtaining uranium itself. I’m no scientist or chemist but from my understanding of nuclear material, you could potentially derive energy from it until it has decayed into lead. Thats a lot of potential energy stored in nuclear waste.

Don’t think that this will happen? Well I’m sorry to burst your bubble but talks are already beginning about this.

In 2000, uranium was selling for about $7 per pound. By last summer it was at $140 per pound. Prices have dropped back now, to about $73 per pound.

 

But that still means the uranium that could be recovered from the waste could be worth about $7.6 billion, according to the federal Government Accountability Office.

 

“Suddenly, this waste nobody wanted has become very valuable,” said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-1st District, in which the Paducah plant is located.

Where there is a demand, someone will always find ways to supply, for a small price of course.