NEI Nuclear Notes

Who [Else] is Advertising with the NHL?

2009-11-03T20:26:00.015-05:00

When NEI announced its corporate sponsorship with the Washington Capitals one month ago, we knew that our advertising neighbors on the dasher at Verizon Center would be Papa Johns and Geico. Naturally, we were curious to know what other advertisers were trying to reach hockey fans across the league via this medium. As the NHL doesn't publicly provide this information, we dutifully watched hockey games in all thirty National Hockey League arenas (24 in the U.S. and a half dozen in Canada) in order to identify some of these advertisers. (Tough gig, eh?)

The findings below are admittedly inexact; they represent a snapshot in time, taken at individual games over several weeks. More caveats:

Only dasherboard ads were tracked.
Digital dasherboard ads with multiple advertisers were not included.
The NHL has 44 ad positions available at each rink - only ads that were visible via the television camera at center ice were tracked. (Positions #40 - #21, left-to-right on a TV screen.)
Team category exclusivity agreements with advertisers are not known.

Qualifiers in place, what did we find out? The Energy sector is well-represented in NHL rinks, ranking 11th in the league - ahead of Healthcare, Financial Services and IT. Seventeen different Energy/Utility companies are advertising with the NHL.

The top 10 advertiser categories:

Telecom
Insurance
Alcohol-Malt Beverage
Restaurant
Consumer Services
Beverage
Consumer Goods
Banking
Gaming
Automotive-Maker

The top 10 advertisers:

Bud Light (20 arenas)
Geico (16)
State Farm (16)
Coca-Cola Zero/Coke Zero (8)
Tim Hortons (8)
Air Canada (7)
AT&T (7)
Molson (7)
Toyota (7)
Verizon (7)

A few observations:

With franchise ownership in flux, the Phoenix Coyotes, unsurprisingly, lead the league in house ads.
Geico and State Farm, each in 16 arenas, are going head-to-head in eight markets: Buffalo, Dallas, Long Island, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay.
There are coffee/doughnut wars brewing in New York state: Tim Hortons and Dunkin' Donuts are both fighting for cruller consumers in Madison Square Garden and HSBC Arena.
Searching for a geographical explanation for this one: Coca-Cola appears to have re-branded its calorie-free version, now marketing it nationally as Coca-Cola Zero. But not in Atlanta, Detroit, NYC and LA, where it remains Coke Zero.
The one-market advertiser that seems completely random and a head-scratcher at first and then you quickly realize is inspired: Starkist Tuna advertising in Pittsburgh's Mellon Arena. (Penguins eat tuna.)
The one-market advertiser that seems completely random and remains a head-scratcher: Lemonhead candies as a corporate sponsor of the Chicago Blackhawks. Yes, the manufacturer, Ferrara Pan, is a Chicago-based company, but one would think they would've chosen a more appropriate candy of theirs to market to a hockey audience. Say, Jaw Busters?

A breakout of all 30 teams and their advertisers can be found here.

In Small Packages

2009-11-03T16:49:00.002-05:00

The plausibility of using small nuclear reactors in situations where a full-scale reactor might be seen as overkill is an idea pushed, as you would imagine, by vendors with such reactors in their portfolios. In fact, a group of those vendors travelled around Washington during the early fall months scaring up as much interest in their wares to anyone who wanted to listen. Not just think tanks, but the NRC has hosted a presentation on small units.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko told the NRC forum on small reactors in mid-October that his agency needs to ensure it has adequate resources to plan for detailed review of small and medium reactors. Among the issues needing resolution is focusing on specific technical designs.

“We need to hear from the industry about the demand for these reactors, and the industry’s development and deployment priorities,” Jaczko said.

Rod Adams has a terrific discussion of the NRC forum up at Atomic Insights.

Jaczko sounds measured but open, about what one would expect. It’s not exactly kick the can, but the can still ended up in the offices of Sen. Mark Udall (D-Col.) who decided to move the conversation forward a bit. He’s submitted an amendment to the Energy Act of 2005 to allocate $250 million to the Department of Energy to investigate ways to lower the cost of building new reactors.

Now, the small reactors are not the meat of the bill. Here’s how he describes its purpose:

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors, and for other purposes.

And here’s what he wants to be researched:

(A) modular and small-scale reactors

(B) balance-of-plant issues [that is, the elements of electricity generation not including nuclear reactors – things like turbines];

(C) cost-efficient manufacturing and construction;

(D) licensing issues; and

(E) enhanced proliferation controls.

So a bundle of thing, but this is the first mention of small reactors we’ve seen in legislation to date.

---

Interestingly, stories we’ve seen about this and the speech Udall gave on the floor of the Senate introducing it all fasten on the small reactors, though he didn’t mention them at all in his speech.

According to a report in the examiner, Colorado's senior U.S. senator has proposed a bill that would give the federal government authority to research whether small-scale, modular nuclear reactors are a feasible contributor to the nation's energy supply.

That’s from Nuclear Street. Our friend Dan Yurman over at Idaho Samizdat also focused on it:

Colorado Senator Mark Udall, has introduced a bill to authorize federal R&D for small, modular reactors. Udall said in a speech on the Senate floor he believes nuclear energy is an important part of the nation's response to global warming.

Here’s video of his speech if you want to take a listen.

---

It seems churlish to talk of small reactors and not provide a way for you to learn about them. So visit NuScale Power, Babcock & Wilcox, even the still-incubating TerraPower. That’ll get you started.

Sen. Mark Udall. We suspect every western politician has photos like this.

After the Ball Is Over

2009-11-02T14:38:00.001-05:00

We provided you with some of the nuclear energy highlights from last week’s hearings on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. Now comes the finagling that makes politics so engaging for those who like to follow it, so frustrating for everyone else. This story from the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin explains:

The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

Now, if you’ve followed the health care reform debate, you know such a definite statement to be indefinite until something definite happens – if you know what we mean.

And in the meantime, haggling goes on to see if a more attractive bill can be created via amendment for those who consider it unattractive. Here’s the nuclear takeaway:

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

[Sen. Lindsey] Graham [R-S.C.] has suggested provisions on nuclear power and offshore oil drilling that could win his support for a cap-and-trade climate bill. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has established a bipartisan working group of 17 Senate offices that is close to producing a detailed amendment aimed at hurrying the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors.

We have no idea what “hurrying” means and will not speculate. (We’re also not sure about “Senate offices.” Might mean Senators, might mean their staffs.) But we’ll be very intrigued to see what Lieberman and crew come up with, it could be what throws that definite statement above off kilter.

And here’s the arithmetic from Graham:

"There is nowhere near 60 votes for a nuclear power bill on its own. There's not 60 votes for a cap-and-trade bill as it's currently constructed," Graham said in an interview. He said combining the two measures is "the only way you'll get to 60 votes."

This is a very unusual blow for bipartisanship in the Senate – not a hotbed of it in recent days. (Remember, Graham co-wrote with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) the much discussed op-ed in the New York Times that stressed a bipartisan solution to this legislation. So he’s in it all the way.)

---

And here’s an issue that more nuclear energy cannot solve, via ClimateWire’s Christa Marshall:

"There's 34 states with significant economic leverage to coal, either by mining it, burning it or shipping it," said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners. He said only Vermont and Rhode Island lack any financial connection to coal.

So there’s that.

“After the ball is over, after the break of morn, / After the dancers' leaving, after the stars are gone, / Many a heart is aching, if you could read them all.” A mammoth success in 1892, Charles Harris’ After the Ball sold over two million copies of the sheet music – how people enjoyed popular music then, around a piano – in its first year, a record at the time. (I used to hear it whistled or hummed with regularity growing up in the South – I’m not that old, so that’s musical longevity.)

The Kerry-Boxer Hearings: Day 3

2009-10-30T10:29:00.001-04:00

And day last. We’re going to focus today on John Rowe, Exelon CEO. As we said over the last two days, the focus of the hearings has been general in nature, alighting on nuclear energy and other energy generators only occasionally. But Rowe dove straight into provisions that should be considered if the bill is to be responsive to the nuclear industry.

Now, there were also representatives from the coal, natural gas, wind and hydro industries present at the hearing yesterday (solar was included earlier), so do not let our monotonic focus confuse you into thinking nuclear was overstressed at the hearing at the expense of others. Not at all.

Finally, this story is taken from Nuclear Energy Overview, our news service for NEI members. What you may not know that NEI’s member will know is that 1. John Rowe is a very prominent figure in the industry, so his words carry considerable weight with the Senators. He speaks to the interests of the industry and, as you’ll see, he’s very frank and realistic in his assessments. 2. Rowe was chairman of NEI (and other industry associations, too, over his long career) for a spell. Members know that, but for our purposes, so should you. (And he said so in his testimony – no need for it to be repeated in the story.)

So, without further ado:

Exelon CEO John Rowe brought nuclear energy front and center Thursday in the marathon three-day hearings being held by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. Rowe offered his perspective on the potential role of nuclear energy in the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill (S.1733) and provided his viewpoint on elements in the bill that would help the expansion of nuclear energy.

Asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) what incentives should be in the bill “to get 150 new nuclear plants up and running in the coming decades,” Rowe provided a list of elements.

“First,” Rowe said, “supporting at least uprates, or better yet … new nuclear plants as part of a low-carbon energy package would have a positive impact. A legislative finding that on-site storage or surface storage of spent nuclear fuel is an acceptable long-term solution to the used nuclear fuel issue would be an important step. Obviously, increasing amounts of loan guarantees would be valuable.”

But Rowe wanted to ensure that as a “believer in the free market,” the best solutions would be chosen over time as according to the circumstances. “We have to look at some long-term things—like solar or like next-generation nuclear plants as things we want to get jump-started, but we don’t want to go too far.”

He continued, “As many people here have suggested, what we’re ultimately looking for is to include the cost of climate protection into the marketplace then let the market make choices from decade to decade that none of us are wise enough to make today.”

Rowe provided an assessment of how many nuclear plants will be built in the short and mid-term. “I believe that the six or eight units that are supported by the existing federal loan guarantee program will ... be in operation by 2020. I do not think there will be a significantly larger number than that. If those units are successful, I believe there will be more on line by 2030 but I doubt it will be many tens let alone one hundred.”

Rowe agreed with Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) that the continued low price of natural gas “haunts” hopes for new nuclear plants. “The low-cost solution for the next decade is often natural gas, and that takes pressure off to work on either new nuclear or the more advanced forms of renewable energy.”

Rowe also strongly agreed with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that nuclear energy should be considered equivalent to renewable energy sources in terms of the renewable standard. “A carbon-free goal or set of subsidies would be preferable to renewable-only subsidies,” he affirmed to Alexander.

Other panelists included Preston Chiaro, CEO of Rio Tinto; Willett Kempton, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware; Bob Winger, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 11; Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund; Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association; and Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

John Rowe.

The Kerry-Boxer Hearings: Day 2

2009-10-29T11:10:00.001-04:00

As you might expect, the second of three days of the hearings on the climate change bill saw some themes emerge. First, the tenor more-or-less avoids talking about specific energy generators even when representatives of relevant companies are present. Natural gas probably picked up the most traction and even that was fairly muted.

Second, many of the participants worry that Congress will not act and carbon reduction will be mandated instead via Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Some say waiting for either a legislative or regulatory remedy causes enough uncertainly to forestall investment. Here’s Ralph Izzo, Chairman, CEO and President of the Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), on this issue (our transcipt):

Some companies are now making low-carbon investment choices, particularly those like PSEG that are already subject to carbon regulation. But uncertainty about a national program slows our transition to a green economy, complicating investment decisions about whether to retrofit coal plants to reduce emissions, pursue development of new nuclear or invest in offshore wind.”

And here he makes the case explicitly:

“Congress can avoid this costly and cumbersome path by enacting strong cap-and-trade legislation that obviates the need for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.”

Third, the expansion of nuclear energy, when it does enter the conversation, seems a foregone conclusion. We noted in the comments on Day 1 that some of our readers think the Obama administration will stifle the development of new nuclear energy facilities. We don’t agree, but would add that Congress has a hand here, too.

Here’s David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, making the case most forcefully in opening testimony:

Three new nuclear power plants by 2020, while an important first step in the right direction, does not a nuclear renaissance make. If you assume that all 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States have been retired by 2050, that means we need approximately 75 new nuclear units over the next 41 years simply to keep nuclear power’s share of electricity production near 20%. If we want to double the nuclear share of power production to 40% in order to accommodate demand growth and realize a greater carbon benefit, we are going to need to build about 150 new nuclear units.

There is a big gap between the three to four new plants currently working their way through the system to construction now and 150. In my view, we have no hope of getting anywhere near 150 new units over the next 41 years unless we have an effective nuclear title as part of comprehensive climate change legislation in 2009.

That title must embrace new nuclear as a fundamental building block of our 21st century national energy policy, and provide the pragmatic, essential policy tools that are needed to realize the laudable intentions laid out for new nuclear power in the Kerry- Boxer bill -- tools that are needed in addition to a price on carbon for nuclear to succeed. Those tools must address the key commercial constraints to a nuclear renaissance, and include worker training, expanded domestic manufacturing capability, transitional loan guarantees for project financing for a second wave of new plants, and efficient and safe regulatory approval processes capable of handling a much larger volume of projects.

And consider this exchange between Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Dustin Johnson of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (our transcript):

Whitehouse: I think you’ll be happy with what comes out on nuclear. There’s a new nuclear era coming and we just need to be sure we do it right and that we work as hard as we can to make nuclear byproducts be manageable and there is technology that allows used nuclear fuel and we need to be sure that we develop that because that’s the hazard.

Johnson: Well, Senator, thank you and you do give me reason for optimism that it’s going to be better, as right now I think the nuclear title is rather weak. But I’ll take your word for it that it will get better.

We choose the theme behind door three.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

The Nuclear Title and the Fourth Estate

2009-10-28T17:06:00.001-04:00

The industry’s release of the nuclear title has multiple goals. One, of course, is to provide information to Congress as it considers the Kerry-Boxer climate change legislation, to indicate how the industry can help government achieve its goals.

But that information is fully public, so it has a role in the public discourse, too. As important as the other estates is the fourth estate, those outlets looking for useful data to add into their editorials and news stories, blog posts and tweets. The material is trustworthy enough to inform discussion.

Here’s Steve Mufson in the Washington Post:

The elements of a nuclear package under discussion include investment tax credits, a doubling or more of the existing $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for new plants, giving nuclear plants access to a new clean energy development bank, federally financed training for nuclear plant workers, a new look at reprocessing nuclear fuel, and a streamlining of the regulatory approval process, according to corporate, congressional and administration sources.

And what response does Mufson find?

Asked how many Republicans could be won over to a climate bill with a substantial nuclear power provision, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said: "At least half a dozen, depending on how this issue comes out. Maybe more." And, he added, "you're not going to get a bill without meaningful Republican participation."

Graham may become as essential to this legislation as Olympia Snowe was to the health reform bill, if bipartisanship becomes as large an issue this time. Interestingly, nuclear energy may be the – or at least a – key in achieving that bipartisanship – and that’s not to mention its usefulness in reducing greenhouse gasses.

In fairness, the story also takes in the downside, so do read the whole thing.

ClimateWire’s Katherine Ling references the industry effort directly:

The NEI proposal echoes nuclear energy language and provisions laid out over the past year by several key moderate Republicans -- including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John McCain of Arizona -- for whom a "robust" nuclear title is necessary, if not sufficient, to vote for a climate bill.

We’d say it’s a double echo, but okay.

Now, a news story by its nature will balance upside and downside and let you decide which is more compelling (the flaw is that this can make sides seem co-equal when they may actually be quite lopsided – see articles about global warming for a recent extreme example of this). Editorials, though, are a different beast.

This status quo is unacceptable. Nuclear energy is far and away one of the most powerful weapons in our arsenal for cutting emissions. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, constructing 180 new reactors would cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

This comes from the Harvard Crimson. Maybe we’d advise a different word choice, but the editorial makes a lot of sense.

A statue in Brookgreen Gardens, S.C. The first estate, in case you’re curious, is the Church, the second the upper chamber of government and the third the lower chamber. If that sounds somewhat non-American, it is – the French coined the first three and English writer and political philosopher Edmund Burke the fourth (“the estate of Able Editors”), as reported by Thomas Carlyle in 1837. That’s a lot of history for a simple phrase.

The Kerry-Boxer Hearings: Day 1

2009-10-27T16:48:00.001-04:00

The first of three days of hearings about the Boxer-Kerry climate change bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)) went the way opening days often do. The Senators kicked things off with what were essentially position papers, with Sen. Boxer highly favorable to the bill and ranking member Sen. James Inhofe (R. Okla.) highly unfavorable. (Inhofe noted, “If we went full speed ahead, nuclear energy would supply 40% of our electricity,” with which we can but agree.)

Since all the speakers were Obama administration officials, the panel was highly favorable about the bill, too. Along with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff filled out the panel.

You can read about their invariably positive thoughts about the legislation in this New York Times story, but here’s Chu:

“When the starting gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United States stumbled, but I remain confident that we can make up the ground. When we gear up our research and production of clean energy technologies, we can still surpass any other country.”

The nuclear takeaway was somewhat muted, but so were most other energy sources (Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) really likes solar energy, though). The discussion stayed a bit more abstract and focused more on the efficacy of the bill.

None-the-less, there was an interesting exchange between Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who supports increased use of nuclear energy, and Chu:

Klobuchar: If we only relied on nuclear, what would be the time frame for that? I guess what I’m getting at, we might need a combination of things, things that move quicker.

Chu: We are pressing very, very hard on getting the first of the – we have authorized 18.5 billion dollars in nuclear loans. That is able to start three maybe four depending on foreign partners – four nuclear reactors at most. So we are working very, very hard. Hopefully, we can announce very soon the first of these and hopefully before the rest of the year the rest of them. This is the beginning of the start of the nuclear industry. Getting three or four going doesn’t really get it going, so I view that as the beginning.

K: So what’s the time frame for that, for when we’ll get that energy?

C: Those loans?

K: Yes.

C; We’re trying to shoot for the end of this year.

[…]

K: But when will we get the energy from it?

C: Ideally, it could be between five to ten years – from the time you get the go-ahead to the time when you turn the electricity on.

K: Thank you very much.

Chu doubtless means loan guarantees, not loans – the government wouldn’t be issuing loans only backing up commercial loans.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D. Minn.)

NEI’s Nuclear Policy Initiative

2009-10-27T12:25:00.001-04:00

We gave you a heads up the other day with some fact sheets that outline what the industry - and NEI – has been doing as hearings on the energy bill get underway today (Look at the Twitter feed on your right for some quotes coming out of the hearings. We’ll see about fleshing them out later).

Toward this end, NEI has released a detailed nuclear policy initiative outlining where nuclear energy fits into the climate change debate. And here, in brief, is where that is:

Analyses of H.R. 2454 [the House climate change bill passed earlier this year], the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House on June 26, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) demonstrate that substantial increases in nuclear generating capacity will be essential to meet the legislation’s carbon-reduction goals.

All true. Now, anti-nuclear folks argue that nuclear energy tries to hoover up all available resources set in its path, leaving little for renewables and new technologies. This takes advantage of the undoubted fact that building a new plant requires high capital costs.

But the arguments depend on how legislation is ultimately constructed and how industries – all of them – that are helpful to a government goal partner with government to achieve an effective outcome.

Nuclear energy has a key part in any climate change legislation. And as you’ll see, it’s not all about money, anyway – a lot of it is about getting nuclear energy plants licensed and built in a timely way.

And let’s not forget the jobs:

A nuclear [energy] construction program will also breathe new life into the U.S. manufacturing sector, as it rebuilds and retools to produce the pumps, valves, vessels and other nuclear-grade equipment needed for new nuclear plants.

Tens of thousands of jobs.

Here are the bullet points:

new plant financing, principally through creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration that would function as a permanent financing platform;
tax incentives for nuclear energy manufacturing and production facilities, and work force development;
ensuring effective achievement of the efficiencies in the new-plant licensing process that was established in 1992 but is only now being tested;
management of used nuclear fuel, including limited financial incentives for the development of voluntary interim storage facilities for used uranium fuel;
nuclear fuel supply, to enhance the certainty and transparency associated with the disposition of government inventories on uranium markets; and
other areas, such as creation of a National Nuclear Energy Council to advise the Secretary of Energy and authorization of a cost-shared, public-private partnership to advance development and deployment of small modular reactors within the next 15 years.

We’ll have a lot more to say about this in the weeks ahead, but consider this the outline of the industry’s goals as the legislation is developed in the Senate. Take a read and see what you think.

Let’s note to that nuclear energy is scarcely the only group to present a detailed legislative initiative. It’s what industry associations do – openly and to the benefit of industry, sure, but the benefits are multiple, in this case even ultimate. After all, this is one of the most important issues today, speaking directly to the fate of the Earth. It just doesn’t get more important.

Clean Energy, The EPA and a Question

2009-10-26T14:30:00.001-04:00

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) released what called the chairman’s mark of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill, called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733). At least, this is an accurate title – bills are often called something benign despite repulsive contents, but this one hits the goals of the bill. While it’s about 100 pages longer than the previous draft version, the nuclear section is much as it was – the focus remains workforce, used fuel management and safety.

We expect this section – and all the sections – to gain more provisions as the bill moves along.

Grist’s David Nelson points out one notable difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill:

it retains EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Nelson doubts this will survive the process. We’re not really sure why this bill would not take precedence over EPA since it establishes the same kind of carbon reduction regime and EPA would be involved in implementing it. But we’ll see.

---

EPA, speaking of that agency, released a report of this bill, looking at it (pdf) under various scenarios. Main takeaway: if nuclear energy is not part of the mix, the goals become harder to meet.

However, in scenarios with limits on the availability of technologies such as nuclear, biomass, and CCS, the limits on international offset usage would be reached.

Which is not what you want to have happen.

The fewer international offsets allowed by S. 1733 compared to H.R. 2454 in these limited technology scenarios would require an extra 9.5 GtCO2e [billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent] of abatement from covered sources cumulatively over the 2012 – 2050 time frame, and would result in higher allowance prices.

Not good, either.

---

The National Journal asked its group of insiders this question:

Q: Could you see yourself supporting a cap-and-trade bill if it included significant incentives for nuclear energy?

Okay, now guess the percentage of support based on party affiliation.

Ready?

Democrats 81-16

Republicans 3-95

But wait, don’t Republicans heavily favor nuclear energy? There’s the rub – not enough to embrace cap-and-trade. (And remember, too, this is a single question poll – lots of potential follow-up questions not asked). Still, interesting to see that the Democrats accept nuclear energy in such heavy numbers.

See the story for respondent’s comments – they really tell the tale.

I’m Just a Bill was created for Schoolhouse Rock, a series of 3-minute interstitial segments made for Saturday morning children’s programming on ABC. Ideated by adman David McCall as a song, which his agency later thought would make a viable cartoon. The series started in 1973 and, even though the cartoons played for a couple of decades, they always retained a sort of Free-to-Be 70s vibe to them. I remember these as being pretty clever and better animated than most of the fare surrounding them.

President Obama at MIT

2009-10-23T17:36:00.001-04:00

President Barack Obama’s energy speech at MIT could have focused a bit more on nuclear energy. But he intended to cover a lot of bases and clearly did that. He noted the green jobs created by the stimulus bill, he called for bipartisanship in crafting the climate change bill in the Senate, he paid appropriate homage to the innovation and accomplishments of schools like MIT. So the actual energy portion of the speech was just that – a portion – and nuclear references, like others, were made in passing.

So let’s see what he said about nuclear energy and give you a taste of the speech:

Everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that's far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America -- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

So there’s that. And:

This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward.

In its context, Obama is here rejecting the notion that nothing can be done about climate change – that we can do anything we set our minds to doing.

You can read the rest of the speech here.

Meanwhile, in the World of Thorium

2009-10-23T14:14:00.001-04:00

The Thorium Energy Alliance had its first annual conference in Washington earlier this week, so The New York Times decided to take a look at the potential of Thorium as a fuel for nuclear energy plants.

Rajendran Raja, a physicist at Fermilab — the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois — said by telephone that the benefit of adding thorium to the fuel mix would be to create much more fuel using existing abundant resources and to reduce waste.

That sounds promising.

This could be done by building a high-intensity proton accelerator with the capacity to produce fast neutrons that could convert nuclear waste, thorium-232 and uranium-238 into fuel, he said.

In case you thought there wasn’t a but:

But to accomplish this, a proton accelerator would need to be 10 times more power-intense than anything that has been produced to date.

And as you can imagine, such an accelerator would need considerable amounts of electricity itself to do the job. The article goes on to say that Fermilab is trying to overcome the issue, but has not quite got there yet.

The Indians are doing without the accelerator:

India has been making advances in the field of thorium-based fuels, working to design and develop a prototype for an atomic reactor using thorium and low-enriched uranium.

Which, if we understand the history of thorium energy is the “traditional” way of leveraging the element. We had hoped the article would be more hopeful itself, but not so much:

[John Boldeman, an Australian specialist in nuclear science and engineering] acknowledged that creating any thorium systems would be a long process that could take decades before finding success.

We suspect countries like Australia and India – which sit on piles of Thorium – as well as Fermilab will find ways to get those decades down to years. Too promising to do otherwise.

See here for much more about thorium – potentials and pitfalls - from the World Nuclear Association. And pay a visit to Kirk Sorenson’s terrific blog about Thorium – and here you thought we were niche.

This is Jons Jakob Berzelius, who identified Thorium as an element in 1828. Why not call it Berzelium? Here’s the thing: Berzelius is Swedish. Hmmm! Thorium, Thorium. Where did he get that name?

A Party in the Spider’s Web

2009-10-23T13:45:00.001-04:00

If this article about the Czech Republic’s energy profile is correct, the number one goal of the country is to disentangle itself from Russia, with which it was of course deeply entangled for some fifty years.

The number two goal, though, is to keep a fishy eye on President Vaclav Klaus, who appears to be quite friendly with the Russians (we can’t pretend to understand the ideological warp that exists in Eastern Europe, but Klaus is described as very conservative – to us, that ought to mean nationalist – but in the Czech Republic, apparently not, as Klaus won the Presidency with the help of the Communists, who we guess would be considered rear-guard.)

Consider that Martin Laryš’ article in the Prague Post is about energy, yet comes to this point:

While energy remains a concern, the bigger threat for the Czech Republic remains less direct Russian takeovers of strategic companies. The close and often personal ties between large Russian state companies and intelligence services would lead to a likely increase in influence for Russian intelligence in the Czech Republic.

Would it? That’s a really big conceptual leap – but we can’t really blame Laryš for making it.

Anyway, here’s the nuclear energy angle:

Fear of Russian dominance in oil and gas was a major argument for further developing Czech nuclear energy, to create an alternative energy source and further decrease dependence on Russia. However, the Russians are trying to find their way into this strategic sector, as well. Like most things, it mostly comes down to money, which Russian energy companies are not lacking.

Neither is French or American money – one wonders if the Czechs want to detach from the Russians as much as this article suggests. Oh, wait, here come the Americans:

Another hopeful candidate [to build two new units in an existing Czech plant] is U.S. company Westinghouse, but, according to the Czech weekly Respekt, the Russians remain the frontrunner.

Oops, there go the Americans (though the deal isn’t set yet – there may be a pleasant surprise.) Here’s some more:

Recently, ČEZ [Czech Power Company] signed a contract with Rosatom subsidiary Tvel for fuel supplies to the Temelín [nuclear] plant, choosing them over Westinghouse. The contract runs through 2010.

This story imagines Russia as the spider with the Czech Republic as the fly – and given history, who can say it’s wrong – but at least on the face of it, the fly seems to be having a pretty good time in the web – or is making the best of being entangled.

See here for more on Czech usage of nuclear energy – it generates about a third of its electricity via the atom, so its an essential part of the country’s energy mix.

The Temelin nuclear plant.

Getting Up to Speed on Nuclear Issues

2009-10-22T14:48:00.001-04:00

We don’t normally point you to NEI’s content because we assume you know it’s there and will go there – as well as to the NRC, ANS and other such worthy organizations – for all your nuclear knowledge needs. However, with energy issues heating up (so to speak), NEI has been busily putting together some information that wraps some good facts into handy little reference pieces.

For example:

New Nuclear Plants: An Engine for Job Creation, Economic Growth iterates points we make here frequently: that building new plants is an engine for employment, both directly and for allied industries (such as parts manufacturing) and for communities that surround a new plant. It all comes down to this:

Absent investment stimulus, the current pace of job creation will slow and the prospect of tens of thousands of new U.S. jobs could recede into the distant future or disappear completely.

That about gets it.

And about those allied jobs that support new plants? New Nuclear Plants Create Opportunities to Expand US Manufacturing, Create Jobs discusses it in detail:

Deployment of new nuclear power plants in the numbers necessary to reduce carbon emissions depends on a robust supply chain of nuclear manufacturers. Construction of new nuclear plants requires hundreds of components and subcomponents, which in turn requires a deep and diverse supplier base.

And although it would be wildly presumptuous to suggest that a nuclear renaissance could spur a revival of the U.S. manufacturing base, it certainly will provide numerous manufacturing opportunities:

Today, U.S. manufacturers of components for new nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities are adding to design and engineering staff, expanding their capability to manufacture nuclear-grade components, and building new manufacturing facilities in preparation for new reactor construction in the U.S. and abroad.

And that’s only up to now.

Finally, what are the measurable benefits of a nuclear plant build out? The Economic Benefits of New Nuclear Power Plant Development provides a lot of interesting numbers (and links so you can double-check them):

For every MWh generated by a coal plant, one metric ton of CO2 is produced. For every MWh generated by a gas plant, one-half of a metric ton of CO2 is produced. According to the previous calculation above, 64,000 MW would generate 505 bkWh which therefore equates to avoiding 505 million metric tons of CO2 if the 46 new reactors replaced all coal plants or avoiding 252 million metric tons of CO2 if the 46 new reactors replaced all gas plants. According to the EPA, the average passenger car emits 5.2 metric tons of CO2 each year. 505 mmt of CO2 is equivalent to the emissions of 97 million passenger cars. 252 mmt of CO2 is equivalent to the emissions of 49 million passenger cars.

Well, you get the idea. Do take a look at these papers.

Especially with a major speech on energy from President Obama coming up tomorrow – and we’ve noted with interest some of the more overtly positive things he’s been saying about nuclear energy lately – we expect nuclear energy, along with renewable energy sources and coal, to take a key role in the upcoming consideration of the Senate climate change bill. These papers are a great way to get up to speed on some of the issues.

Stewart Brand and Amory Lovins Debate about Nuclear on NPR's OnPoint

2009-10-21T16:45:00.003-04:00

Tom Ashbrook from NPR's OnPoint got the two to cordially hash out their opposing views on nuclear. Though the conversation lasted for about 12 minutes, not much was actually debated. I guess a good debate is what the blogosphere is for.

So far I haven't seen much praise for Lovins' latest piece, in fact it looks like in the comments section at Grist, his supporters were rather thin. Rod Adams continues to take Lovins to town, Brian Wang at Next Big Future had a lot to critique and Sovietologist piped in. We, of course, are generating our thoughts but are waiting a bit to see how the debate plays out. It's been spectacular to see the nuclear industry's supporters expose and rip up the Rocky Mountain Institute's latest junk science.

Closing A Deal in Idaho – or Maybe China

2009-10-20T17:00:00.002-04:00

The difficulties of identifying and exploiting a market – whether to provide nuclear energy or to market a new food product – is never easy and, for a start-up, notably difficult.
To wit: A company called Alternate Energy Holdings has a pretty good idea:

A small company that's pushing a billion-dollar nuclear power plant in Idaho now says it wants to build another one at a different location.
Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. says it's asking Payette County to amend a plan that governs land use, so it can build a nuclear power plant on approximately 5,100 acres in western Idaho.

This is presumably on land where MidAmerican Nuclear Energy decided last year not to build a plant, so some of the work has been done. And why do they want to do this?

Don Gillispie, Alternate Energy's chief executive, says his projects will bring benefits to rural communities.

Well, we can’t argue with that, though the AP story is so short as to be barren on details.
So we visited AEHI’s Web site:

AEHI is an alternate energy electricity generating company focused on the construction and acquisition of green energy sources – primarily nuclear power plants and solar. The company also uses renewables and technology to essentially eliminate energy bills on houses and commercial buildings.

We’re not sure how they’d eliminate energy bills, but okay. In any event, AEHI centers its activities on Idaho, or seems to, until you get to this (small pdf):

AEHI will open an office in the Chaoyang District, central business district, of Beijing in July to facilitate institutional investors for AEHI projects and joint ventures with Asian companies for nuclear plant components and other energy-related projects with US companies.

That’s thinking big. So far, AEHI hasn’t got very far past the news release stage on any of its initiatives, but then, it’s only been around for three years. We checked our friends over at Idaho Samizdat to see what they know about AEHI. Answer: quite a lot. Start here for more, but here's the summary:

The penny-stock firm has had little success in its efforts to organize a nuclear reactor project in Idaho.

It may just be that AEHI is trying everything it can to find and develop a market and interest enough venture capital to help it stay afloat until it makes a sale – either in Idaho or China. Certainly not unusual (if a bit unusually far flung), often not successful, but that’s how it works. All one can really do from the outside is speculate. Let’s keep half an eye on AEHI and see how it goes.
Not the Yangtze River – the Snake River in Idaho.

What Environmentalists Know

2009-10-19T17:15:00.001-04:00

Ken Edelstein over at Mother Nature News acknowledges that what we might call “classic” environmentalists, those raised on the Whole Earth Catalog and the No Nukes concerts, might have a bit of a problem.

How much less politically radioactive nuclear power has become was underscored Oct. 11 in a Sunday New York Times op-ed co-written by Sen. John Kerry. As Massachusetts’ lieutenant governor and then as senator, the Democrat was a vocal foe of the Seabrook nuclear power plant, then under construction in neighboring New Hampshire. He remains an environmental darling -- the climate-change bill co-author tasked with rounding up Senate supporters of the historic legislation.

Then, what about the fact that Kerry did co-write that editorial? Is it a sign of breaking faith?

The NYT op-ed generated buzz because Kerry wrote it with a Republican colleague, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. It signaled that some Republicans actually might support a climate bill this year if it contained significant compromises, and that Democrats might agree to such compromises to get the bill passed.

A lot of those compromises have to do with nukes.

Well, that’s a bit round about. More likely, Kerry saw that climate change legislation has no chance of achieving its goals without nuclear energy. Both EPA and EIA have concluded this. But Edelstein is right that climate change certitude is wreaking havoc upon the zeal that powers the anti-nuclear movement. These are bright folks and scientific consensus does speak to their interest.

Other environmental groups shouldn’t be described exactly as pro-nuke, but they are keeping their options open. The Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- all highly respected organizations with a strong bent toward research and policies -- have said they’re at least willing to consider nuclear energy as part of broader legislation.

Well, if you’re of a mind, that’s a bucket of cold water in the face. It’s like watching dominos topple.

Sadly, even Edelstein’s efforts to restore nuclear energy to its proper sinister place in the pantheon of evil seem a bit half-hearted.

With the start of this year’s National Hockey League season, NEI struck a sponsorship deal with the Washington Capitals; there’s nothing like rink-side signs that say “Clean Air Energy” to get your message across to members of Congress who happen to be hockey fans.

It gets “the message across to members” of environmental groups, too, which might be a cause for alarm. Nuclear energy has been the fear trigger for so long that we get why it would be tough to let go of it – we held onto our Amiga computer way too long, like a piece of ourselves we didn’t want amputated – but sooner or later, reality trumps all.

National Journal's Expert Blog Asks: "Does Nuclear Fit the [Climate] Bill?"

2009-10-19T10:40:00.003-04:00

The answers to this question from various experts should be fun to watch unfold over the week. Be sure to remember to check in occasionally to see how the discussion is going. It's up to five mixed responses so far...

Update 1:50 pm: NEI's CEO Marv Fertel added his two cents to the discussion.

Update 10/21, 4 pm: So far 14 experts have weighed in. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa has the most favorable votes with NEI's CEO right behind. Carl Pope from the Sierra Club dropped an odd comment about Texas and low-level waste and surprisingly the American Wind Energy Association felt the need to comment about the nuclear industry's financial barriers. I wonder what AWEA thinks of HSBC's comments:

HSBC Private Bank is recommending weightings of 1-5 percent in nuclear power to clients without ethical objections, as subsidy-dependent renewable energy stocks are too exposed to political risk. Fredrik Nerbrand, head of global strategy at HSBC's private banking arm, said nuclear power was the "only sustainable" means of electricity generation.

And the newest response was from the industry's critic on costs, Mark Cooper, who Florida Power and Light took to town several months ago.

A Few Words from Steven Chu

2009-10-16T17:03:00.002-04:00

While President Obama pulled duty in New Orleans the other day, as we reported in the post below, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is in Paris speaking to a meeting of the International Energy Agency. You can decide who pulled the better duty.

Chu and the energy ministers are all jockeying for position during the run up to Copenhagen. But this Bloomberg article shows him pushing nuclear energy in a notably “aggressive” way.

The U.S. government will announce loan guarantees for nuclear plants “very soon,” Chu said. “Nuclear power is an important part of what the U.S. has to do to reduce emissions.”

The U.S. is “working aggressively to restart the nuclear industry,” he said. “I believe the nuclear waste problem is solvable on a scientific level and a political level.”

We’ll be waiting for those announcements – we do think more loan guarantees will get that aggressive work going even more aggressively, but that may wait to be done in the Senate climate change bill.

Good words, as always, from Chu, though. With loan guarantees and the long-awaited Blue Ribbon commission on used nuclear fuel coming, 2010 looks to be an interest year for our friend the atom.

The View from Turkey Point

2009-10-16T16:11:00.001-04:00

Interesting doings in Florida today:

The Florida Public Service Commission rejected arguments from environmentalists and clean-energy advocates and voted 3-1 today to approve a request by Progress Energy, and Florida Power & Light, to charge customers for four new nuclear power plants that wouldn't generate any voltage until 2017.

It’s a first shot on this story and not completely accurate. True, four new units are involved. Two of them – Progress Energy’s – will be in Levy County – we wrote about them the other day. The other two – FPL’s - will be put in the existing plant at Turkey Point. In addition, FPL won approval to increase capacity at four units, two each at Turkey Point and St. Lucie. Likewise, Progress Energy will be able to increase capacity at one unit at Crystal River.

We’d also call the “clean-energy advocates” phrase a bit misleading since nuclear advocates could call themselves that with equal validity.

But why filter? We can go straight to the Florida Public Service Commission to see what they said:

“Nuclear power provides fuel diversity and will save Florida residents money on future utility bills,” said PSC Chairman Matthew M. Carter II. “The Legislature enabled utilities to plan for tomorrow by spreading the rate impact over time. Utilities have to begin spending now to meet future power needs that will keep the lights on for us, our children, and our grandchildren at prices we can afford.”

Mr. Carter has given you Nuclear Power in a Nutshell; we offer a deep bow to him for hitting exactly the right note.

And here’s a bit more of what they did:

FPL’s approved $62,676,816 cost recovery includes costs associated with the uprate of its existing nuclear generating plants, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 and St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, and the construction of its proposed nuclear power plants, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7.

PEF’s approved $206,907,726 cost recovery includes costs associated with the uprate of its existing nuclear generating plant at Crystal River, and the construction of its proposed nuclear power plants, Levy Units 1 and 2.

These figures cover the next year and have to be reapproved – we’re not exactly sure why, but it isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It allows the PSC to measure public feedback and progress made by the companies and to rule accordingly. But surely two years would be as workable and not send all the parties into battle mode so frequently. Even “clean energy advocates” need a breather.

Turkey Point. One of the nicer plant shots we’ve seen.

Nuclear Weekend Reading

2009-10-16T14:20:00.003-04:00

For those who may be stuck inside all weekend due to bad weather (it's supposed to continue to be dreary around DC for the next couple days) there are quite a few excellent and fun readings I recommend.

First is Dan Yurman's third-party perspective about the push for nuclear in Idaho. His frank descriptions on the actions of the battling parties involved make for an entertaining read:

The SRA [Snake River Alliance] describes itself as a "watchdog," but as Idaho’s self-appointed nuclear watchdog, the Snake River Alliance (SRA), has also demonstrated that having one around sometimes results in a lot of barking at the wrong things.
...
Unlike most nuclear energy companies, which take over-the-top, anti-nuclear rhetoric in stride, thin-skinned AEHI CEO Don Gillispie threatened to sue the SRA for libel. SRA then exploited the situation it had created by charging AEHI with trying to shut it up with a “slap suit.” But both parties backed down after a cooling-off period.

Ah, politics. Next on the rec list is Steve Kirsch's push to receive federal funding for the Integral Fast Reactor which he posted at Barry Brook's blog:

Congress should add a provision to the climate bills to authorize $3B to have DOE work with industry to build a demonstration Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) plant in order to jump-start this critical clean energy technology.

Make sure you have 15-20 minutes to read Steve's piece because it's quite long yet informative on the potential of the IFR technology.

Charles Barton shared his thoughts on a Denmark wind study. And Luke Weston decided to relate Blog Action Day on climate change to nuclear power in Australia.

Last but not least is the debate and discussion going on at Grist started by one of nuclear's biggest critics, Amory Lovins, that aims to debunk Stewart Brand's claims to promote the benefits of nuclear. Steve Kirsch (STK) and Rod Adams have represented the pro-nuclear side exquisitely and have even gotten Mr. Lovins to comment. That's a rarity considering the last time we heard from him and the Rocky Mountain Institute crew was when they were going to supposedly respond to our shellacking of their last study yet never did.

We're still mulling over Mr. Lovins' study but from first glance, it's toned down the anti-nuclear rhetoric a little bit compared to previous studies. Of course, it still has many exaggerations in our opinion such as this (p. 6):

Modern solar and wind power are more technically reliable than coal and nuclear plants; their technical failure rates are typically around 1–2%.

The use of the word reliable in this case stands contrary to what many would consider to be reliable. How can technologies that produce power based on the intermittent wills of the sun and wind gods at only a small fraction of their rated capacities be considered more reliable than nuclear that produces power more than 90% of the time? This doesn't even pass the sniff test for me but of course we've got to provide facts and figures to rebut this claim. We'll let you know what we think of Mr. Lovins' latest study over the coming weeks.

Hope everyone has a great weekend!

A Word or Two from the President

2009-10-15T16:48:00.001-04:00

Here are the words:

"There's no reason why technologically we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France does it and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way."

This is from Reuters.

Video here. President Obama was speaking at a town hall in New Orleans. Go to the five minute mark for the nuclear comments.

Correction: we corrected Obama’s quote based on the video. Reuters did get it wrong.

Resources And Streamlining in the Senate

2009-10-15T16:45:00.001-04:00

The bipartisan push for a nuclear title in the Senate’s climate change bill picked up considerably today:

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) is helping to negotiate a nuclear energy amendment that could help bring aboard swing votes who support the industry. Architects and backers of the nuclear effort include Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who are seeking more federal financial backing and other support.

Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats and of course he and Sen. McCain had a go at a climate change bill in the last Congress. Sen. Graham penned with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) the editorial discussed in a post below. You can search for Sen. Carper on this site, too. He’s a pretty reliable advocate for nuclear energy. In other words, this isn’t a remarkably surprising group.

What is surprising is that they are crossing the aisle so early and so productively.

Carper yesterday declined to endorse the idea that the NRC review process needs to be further streamlined.

"To the extent that people have ideas for further streamlining, should we look at those? Sure. But keep in mind a lot has been done, there is an incredibly heavy workload for the NRC already, and we have got make sure they have the resources they need," [Carper] said.

This seems exactly right. There’s a significant difference between wanting to speed up the process by winnowing out steps and adding resources so the NRC can see the current process through without undue delay due to lack of personnel. That’s “streamlining” of a kind and answers to the need for timely licensing without the NRC becoming a funnel with an extremely thin neck.

The approach laid out by Sen. Kerry the other day – making the bill a framework that will be fleshed out as it goes forward – is bearing some unusually tasty fruit.

Sen. Tom Carper wants you to know.

Checking in on the Washington Capitals

2009-10-15T13:01:00.007-04:00

With a record of 2-2-2, the Caps' play so far this season has been inconsistent and somewhat disappointing. Media coverage of NEI's corporate sponsorship with the team, meanwhile, has been steady.

Stories about the partnership have appeared on: the AP wire, the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital, The Washington Post's Sports Bog, The Toronto Star, Sports Business Daily, E&E News, Idaho Samizdat and NBC4, the NBC affiliate in Washington, D.C.

And we were pleased to learn yesterday that mention of the Caps/NEI deal has made ESPN Magazine's, much-discussed "Body Issue" [page 44]. Does this mean nuclear energy can now be considered sexy?

What goes on at a nuclear plant outage?

2009-10-15T07:35:00.001-04:00

Carrington Dillon at Clean Energy Insight wrote a very informative piece on the answer.

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” does not primarily refer to a power outage or blackout. Every Spring and Fall, when power demand is at its lowest, the nuclear industry shuts down some of their plants for maintenance and repair.

This could mean packing up and going to a nuclear power plant for the next three months, or staying at their home office and working the night shift. We will try our best to keep you updated on nuclear news and interesting nuclear power facts [while we're away tending to outages]. However, all of our focus will be on our work in order to be as safe as possible and as productive as possible during these critical outages. Plus, working on an outage can help an engineer gain priceless experience in the field and in the industry, which will make Clean Energy Insight better equipped to bring you voices of experience.

Be sure to check out the rest, pictures and videos and all!

Upside Down Down Under

2009-10-14T16:00:00.001-04:00

Nuclear power, based on existing technologies, still has all its original problems: proliferation of nuclear weapons, terrorism, lack of long-term waste management, rare but catastrophic accidents and huge economic costs. All except the risk of accidents are worse now than in the 1970s. In several decades, as high-grade uranium is used up, nuclear power will also become a substantial emitter of carbon dioxide from uranium mining and milling.

All this comes from Mark Diesendorf, the deputy director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales in Australia. We’ve been following Australia’s to-and-fro on nuclear energy with some interest, as it seems to be where Germany was about two years ago.

For us, Diesendorf’s article represents a stage in the process of finding nuclear energy at least tolerable – noting that it is achieving some traction, however slight, in Australia, he does his utmost (and in a rather elegant understated way – he’s a good writer) to stamp the beast into mush. And the paragraph above represents a lot of stamping.

He grasps that nuclear energy provides carbon-emission free baseload energy, which is a problem for his argument – unless he can make baseload energy irrelevant:

Baseload supply can be provided by a mix of wind, bioelectricity from combustion of residues of existing crops and plantation forests, solar thermal power with low-cost thermal storage and soon hot rock geothermal power.

Peakload power, that can respond rapidly to fluctuations in supply and demand, can be provided by hydro and gas turbines burning biofuels produced sustainably. With the forthcoming growth in electric vehicles, there will be ample electrical storage available in car batteries connected to the grid to smooth out the fluctuations in sunshine and make solar photovoltaic power a reliable source of daytime power.

Well, all right, we kind of admire the ingenuity of the energy contraption Diesendorf constructs here – it shows he dreams big and that should always be encouraged. But it does depend on a lot of things working just so and in tandem and with some sources barely out of the lab much less scaled up. Rube Goldberg would be proud.

It’s a fascinating article in one of the last major beachheads of anti-nuclear zeal.

---

And here’s why that zeal might feel imperative to Diesendorf and others:

A secure, clean and cheap energy future for Australia in which nuclear power plays a pivotal role is a categorical imperative. Uranium should be recognized in the Rudd Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme bill as the most valuable and cost-effective form of "carbon offset".

That’s from Leslie Kemeny, the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy. Well, all right, he is obviously an interested party. But the point is: this is playing out in Australian media with unusual intensity. How it will go is anyone’s guess, but recent history does make one of those guesses a better bet.

[Rube Goldberg], was thinking of [a college professor’s] improbable mass of quasi-identifiable parts when he drew his "Automatic Weight Reducing Machine" in 1914, for The New York Evening Mail. It used such elements as a lump of wax, a bomb, a helium balloon, a red-hot stove and a donut rolling down an incline, to trap the overweight individual in a sound-proof, food-proof prison until he loses enough weight to wriggle free. More on Goldberg here.