NEI Nuclear Notes

Simona De Silvestro, Off and On the Track

2008-05-16T13:45:00.001-04:00

Simona De Silvestro —and the industry—gets some nice pub with the lead story on today's ClimateWire,

A stunning Swiss blonde parked her racecar in the most unlikely of places: a hotel ballroom in Chicago filled with nuclear industry representatives at an annual conference.

The 19-year-old Simona de Silvestro was fresh from winning the Atlantic Championship season opener in Long Beach, Ca., driving the sleek, 300 horsepower Swift 016, powered by a modified Cosworth engine. Now she was entering a competition of a different sort. The vehicle, which is emblazoned with the phrase "Nuclear Clean Air Energy," is part of a racing team backed by actor Paul Newman.

De Silvestro and her car's pro-nuclear message are both being used by the nuclear power industry to turn heads, but not just at the track. The industry plans to show off her car and its message on university campuses.

NEI recently provided partial sponsorship of Newman Wachs Racing -- de Silvestro's movie star-supported team -- in exchange for the right to brand her vehicle on the racing circuit and take her on multiple campus visits to generate interest in nuclear power. Entergy, the second largest nuclear power operator in the United States, also is a sponsor of the campaign.

Full article is available here (sub req'd.)

Simona will seek to maintain her position as points leader in the Atlantic Championship Series at this Sunday's race at Laguna Seca in Monterey, CA.

Au Revoir, EDF?: British Energy Rounds Up Some More Bidders

2008-05-16T11:19:00.001-04:00

We wrote a couple of days ago we may have jumped the gun on the British Energy story by declaring Electricité de France (EDF) the last company standing in the bidding for the nuclear utility. We did - or might have. While British Energy says it has more interest, it will not say who has expressed the interest or how serious the various parties are.

Here's how Bloomberg puts it:

Two of the three proposals received by British Energy were for more than 680 pence [about $13.29] a share, yesterday's closing price, said a person with knowledge of the offers, who declined to be identified because the matter is confidential. Centrica Plc, the U.K.'s biggest energy supplier, made one of them, a second person said.

Centrica is a bit of a surprise as earlier stories had them partnered with EDF.

Even more surprising is that one of the bidders is thought to be Suez, the French energy concern that complained that EDF might lock them out of the British nuclear market. We said then they might want to consider just competing and here they are - competing. Good for Suez, if the rumor is confirmed.

Various article are suggesting different bidders, including Germany's RWE (although Bloomberg thinks they're out) and E.ON and Spain's Iberdola.

Sit tight - this one's going to take awhile to play out - and let's see what happens next.

This Island Earth: Following Up on Some Recent Stories

2008-05-15T11:17:00.004-04:00

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 science students completed their comprehensive research project which studied site selection, background radiation, media perception, modeling worst case scenarios, comparing technology sources and risk assessment.

They don't think the Peace River site chosen by Bruce Power is the best:

"When it comes to technical feasibility and the Alberta landscape, nuclear is a competitive option," said Kowalewski. "The biggest limitation for what we looked at was the actual feasibility of the Peace River [site] that is currently proposed, based on soil stability, proximity to vaults and water balance issues."

Well, okay. Our old friend The Pembina Institute also weighs in, but it's boilerplate nuclear-is-bad stuff.

---

We wrote recently about Vietnam's intention to move forward with nuclear energy. Nothing new on that front, but Hanoi is now hosting The third international nuclear power exhibition. Here's what it's about:

It is designed to provide [the] Vietnamese [information] about the world development of the industry.

The exhibits include displays of Japan's advanced pressurised water reactor and France's third-generation pressurised reactors.

(I've helped the translation here a bit.)

Sounds like AREVA and Toshiba are exhibiting. We wondered if France was going to weigh in here - looks like the answer is yes.

---

We've written several times about the growing interest in nuclear energy in the Arab world, but have always read that the go-to partners were France and the United States, with Russia darting about. Now, score one for the British:

United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom signed here today a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

We suspect that "peaceful uses" phrase will be used a lot as Iran's neighbors will very much want to avoid the taint of Iran's activities. Here's a little more, from the British side:

Asserting that nuclear power can make a real contribution to meeting UK's commitments to transition to a low carbon economy whilst enhancing energy security, the Minister pledged his country's support to the development of safe, secure, and economically viable civil nuclear power generation and research programmes.

And no Pembina Institute to pour vinegar on the good times.

AFL-CIO Backs "Clean Energy Bank"

2008-05-15T11:04:00.005-04:00

Add Mark Ayers, President of the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, to those supporting the creation of a "Clean Energy Investment Bank." At the NEA conference last week, Ayers said, “Our primary mission [during the current Congress] is to secure an extension of the loan guarantee program to ‘kick start’ the renewal of nuclear power generation in this country.” He also expressed the desire to explore ways to advance the concept of a “clean energy bank” that would help finance construction of capital-intensive energy projects, including nuclear plants.

The Clean Energy Investment Bank Act of 2008 was introduced by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and is co-sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Bon Jour, EDF: British Energy Finds a Bidder

2008-05-14T15:11:00.001-04:00

Well, maybe. The British Government solicited bids for its 35% share of British Energy, which runs eight of the ten nuclear energy plants in the country. The last several weeks have seen stories about the Germans (E.ON) and Spanish (Iberdola - they now own Scottish Power) dropping by to kick the tires, and they might still submit bids, but it looks like Electricité de France (EDF), in concert with the British Centrica, has won the prize. This could be considered a disappointment for investors, as the stock has been rising in hopes of a bidding war.

So far, EDF is mum about how much it is bidding, but:

The Daily Telegraph said Friday that EDF and its advisers, Merrill Lynch, were putting together a deal worth between 9.2 billion pounds (11.7 billion euros, 18 billion dollars) and 10.2 billion pounds.

This story from Agence-France - there are many stories about this development out there - suggests that EDF is pushing into the UK market regardless of British Energy.

The Financial Times said the firm had acquired land near Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, north Wales, and Hinckley Point, in the county of Somerset, southwest England.

It said such "stealthy purchases" could allow EDF to build up to three new atomic power stations, regardless of whether it is successful in its bid for British Energy.

And all these aggressive moves have caused alarm for a French competitor, Suez.

Suez has begun intensive lobbying of the Government and the board of British Energy to ensure EdF would not be able to stop other operators building nuclear power stations in the UK.

Seems crybabyish. We're not expert on French business practices, but perhaps Suez ought to just get out there and compete.

---

We may have jumped the gun a bit on this one - this is a story containing a fair number of hairpin turns - but we've wanted to get it on our gps devices for awhile and this particular turn in the road seems a good place to leave a marker. As they say in TV Land, stay tuned.

The Choreographers of Nature: Michio Kaku on Nuclear Energy

2008-05-14T11:44:00.002-04:00

Michio Kaku, co-founder of string field theory and professor of theoretical physics at City University in New York City, makes some interesting points in a short interview with The India Times' Narayani Ganesh:

We're moving from being passive observers of nature to its active choreographers. This historic transition in science is enabled by discoveries in three fundamental areas: The DNA theory of life, the atomic theory of matter and computer technology that demonstrates that the workings of the mind are based on logic and electrical circuits.

I actually don't think computer technology demonstrates anything of the sort - it took aliens from Jupiter, after all, to cause the HAL 9000 to jump from human simulacra to human - but Kaku can likely run rings around my paltry doubts.

He's not too fond of nuclear energy:

Going for nuclear energy is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Fusion (based on hydrogen) is clean. But fission (based on uranium) generates tremendous waste. Nature uses fusion; for example, allowing the stars to recycle themselves cleanly. But nature does not use uranium, which is filthy. Nature only uses fusion, the power of the stars.

There appears to be some Gaia thinking in his formulation, but it's worth noting that nature doesn't actually "use" any energy source to generate electricity that man has harnessed for his own use, certainly not wind, solar, gas, coal, hydro or the rest. Using an energy source to generate heat has been understood as man's domain since Prometheus stole fire from the gods and man really did become the choreographer of nature. (Well, if he can do Gaia...)

Instead, he suggests:

Beyond 30 years, the goal of the ITER project in France is to find a way to control fusion. Within 40 years, commercial fusion power, which uses ordinary sea water as fuel, may become a reality.

He allows for this much wishful thinking because, he says, the polar ice sheets will have melted away by 2050 anyway. Kaku is a fascinating man and his current book Physics of the Impossible is well worth reading. His tendency is to think big - really big - and in the very long term. But practically, he reveals some of the pitfalls of an ivory tower genius brought low by the necessities of keeping society puttering along - at least until fusion gets itself together - maybe - someday.

New York Times Endorses Nuclear Energy

2008-05-14T08:58:00.012-04:00

In a New York Times Editorial running this morning, The Post-Bush Climate, we find this nugget,

His [McCain] plan differs in other respects, too. He decided at the last minute to delete from his speech a proposed tariff on countries like India and China that defy international agreements on emissions, partly because the tariff could be misconstrued as hostile to free trade, which Mr. McCain supports. The Senate bill contains such a provision. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain is much more enthusiastic, and in our view rightly so, about nuclear energy as a cleaner power source than the Senate sponsors or the two Democratic presidential candidates are.

Since 2005, we've been running a feature on this blog titled, "Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy." Perhaps it's time to start "Another Editorial Board for Nuclear Energy."

Welcome aboard, NYT.

Bush Sends U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Energy Pact to Congress

2008-05-13T16:37:00.001-04:00

President George W. Bush has sent the agreement called Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy to Congress for approval. Here is a description of the pact from President Bush's letter to Congress:

The proposed Agreement provides a comprehensive framework for peaceful nuclear cooperation with Russia based on a mutual commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. It has a term of 30 years, and permits the transfer of technology, material, equipment (including reactors), and components for nuclear research and nuclear power production. It does not permit transfers of Restricted Data, and permits transfers of sensitive nuclear technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, and major critical components of such facilities by amendment to the Agreement. In the event of termination, key non-proliferation conditions and controls continue with respect to material and equipment subject to the Agreement.

Congress has been quite dubious about this pact, particularly because of Russian aid to Iran's nuclear efforts. The best hope for the pact is for Congress to do nothing; if no action is taken in 60 days, then the pact takes force. But the House has already passed a measure that essentially forbids this pact and the Senate has a similar bill with 70 or so co-sponsors ready to go. Congress appears ready to weigh-in, and a perceived toughness toward Iran will play well to voters. Much more to come, no doubt.

We've written about this pact recently. Take a look there for more details and links.

Explaining the Costs of Nuclear Power Plants

2008-05-13T09:35:00.005-04:00

Conferences, campaign speeches, and media all contributed to an especially busy NEI Monday. At Brookings, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) called for a bipartisan Manhattan project leading to "clean energy independence." The U.S. representative to the IAEA, Ambassador Greg Schulte, discussed nonproliferation initiatives at a Woodrow Wilson International Center event. Sen. John McCain (R) continued his policy tour, stopping in Oregon to deliver his address on climate change. And The Wall Street Journal published an article looking at the costs of new plant builds.

Mark Flanagan responded via the NEI blog. Scott Peterson took to the airwaves, citing industry and independent analysis that shows nuclear-generated electricity to be cost-effective and competitive. Peterson also emphasized the bipartisan support for new plants in statehouses and Congress.

Let the Battle Begin: The Wall Street Journal on the Expense of New Plants

2008-05-12T16:02:00.001-04:00

The argument that building new nuclear energy plants will represent ruinous expense for anyone to undertake has percolated among nuclear opposition folks without much mainstream notice. Now, however, the Wall Street Journal has taken a crack at it. It's nicely researched and written up to WSJ standards, although you've heard the argument of the piece many times. Here's the lede:

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.

$5 to $12 million? That seems a pretty big spread. Here's a longer taster, with a soupcon of that "on the one hand, on the other hand" thing journalists use to cover all bases:

Several things could derail new development plans. Excessive cost is one. A second is the development of rival technologies that could again make nuclear plants look like white elephants. A drop in prices for coal and natural gas, now very expensive, also could make nuclear plants less attractive. On the other hand, if Congress decides to tax greenhouse-gas emissions, that could make electricity from nuclear plants more attractive by raising costs for generators that burn fossil fuels. Nuclear plants wouldn't have to pay the charges because they aren't emitters.

Coal and natural gas are not really rival technologies. They are part of the energy mix and will be for a long time. So-called clean coal and carbon emission sequestration may cause their stock to rise in the greenhouse-gas-reduction sweepstakes, but likely not at the expense or even benefit of nuclear energy. Likewise, the rise and fall of prices in those markets would have next to no impact on nuclear energy because nuclear energy solves different problems.

The second point - that Congress will turn a fishy eye on fossil fuels - is widely perceived to be certain, which is what has led in part to the nuclear renaissance and also to the increased interest in solar, wind and tide technologies. (Other non-emitting energy sources are not mentioned at all in the article, an odd omission.)

What the article represents is what newspapers are actually good at, which is pushing back at orthodoxy. That nuclear energy now seems the orthodox way to address climate change is heartening; that the Wall Street Journal would want to push back at nuclear energy and try out the expense argument is inevitable - it gets the issue into the public sphere. Fine: it had to happen sooner or later and it's not that tough an argument.

The article treats nuclear energy as though it were an all-or-nothing proposition; it's not. Coal, gas, wind, solar, nuclear and all the usual suspects will feed the energy grid. Nuclear has a place at the table, but it won't scarf down all the food.

---

Leave it to our friends at the Heritage Foundation to have a go of their own at the WSJ article:

The simple fact is that energy prices are increasing and if the nation wants to limit CO2 emissions, then nuclear must be part of the answer. So the question for policy makers is two-fold. First, what can be done to reduce energy prices overall and second what can be done to reduce the construction costs of nuclear power plants.

Heritage lists six proscriptive points, some of which reiterate our own, some of which are new:

...Commit to the free trade of commodities. Simply lifting tariffs on the products, like steel and cement mentioned by the WSJ would reduce construction costs. The U.S. would have the added benefit of gaining access to the resources to build the energy plants, of whatever source, to meet its energy demands.

And some of which are conservative boilerplate we could take or leave:

Sixth, minimize regulation. The nuclear energy industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the country. At best, it will take nearly four years before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will give approval to build a new plant. Furthermore, regulatory mandates have drastically increased the amount of construction materials needed to build a plant despite experience showing that such reinforcements were unnecessary.

Minimizing regulation has done this country so much good, hasn't it?

But read the whole thing - and the WSJ article too - and watch the fur fly.

Monday Morning Breakfast

2008-05-12T06:05:00.006-04:00

...nuclear energy news you may have missed this weekend.

The Washington Post reports that at least 40 developing countries have approached U.N. officials about starting nuclear energy programs....According to the AP, Senator McCain will call for the expansion of nuclear power while speaking at a Vestas wind turbine plant in Portland, Oregon....The Wall Street Journal looks at the economics of new plant builds....UK hedge fund, The Children's Investment Fund (TCI), will seek sanctions against the Japanese government over its decision barring TCI from doubling its stake in J-Power. Per columnist William Hutchings, "The firm said the government's decision was damaging Japan's reputation as an open capital market."...The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, the local that covers Luzerne County, PA (Susquehanna), is publishing a two-part series titled "Nuclear Reaction." Part one, "Powering Up," ran on Sunday....The Lawrence Journal-World's man-on-the-street asks its readers, "Would you prefer that the Legislature pursue nuclear or coal power in Kansas?" (They prefer nuclear.)...Diane Farsetta from PR Watch doesn't.

The Rise of Carly Fiorina

2008-05-11T16:04:00.010-04:00

It's been a good few months for Carly Fiorina; the once-embattled former president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard is now an advisor and leading surrogate for the McCain presidential campaign. Fiorina has recently been mentioned as a possible running mate with Senator McCain. Today she appeared in the "B" segment on ABC's This Week. Here she is on McCain and nuclear energy,

There's no question that Senator McCain has said over and over again that we have to incent innovation. So that we are building these new green technologies. We have to incent innovation around things like clean coal. And by the way, we also have to incent innovation around nuclear power. Which is clean. It's abundant. Yes, there are issues. But nuclear power, if we would step up, and adopt nuclear power in this country, that's potentially many millions of jobs.

Note: Transcript is not yet available. Quotation appears at 3:43 in the video clip.

Everything Old Is New Again: Westinghouse Steps Forward

2008-05-09T13:31:00.001-04:00

For a lot of folks, Westinghouse is a name associated with the washing machines, TV sets and vacuum machines that graced their suburban tract homes growing up. Even at the time, though, the brand seemed a little old-fashioned, something with the ordure of musty velour.

But Westinghouse was then a powerhouse almost as broad based as General Electric. In recent years, as a division of Toshiba, Westinghouse Electric Company (the electronics and appliance maker still exists as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, owned by CBS) has largely focused on the nuclear market. Here's how they've spent the last several years:

For the past few years, amid a resurgence of the nuclear power industry, Westinghouse's Engineering Services group has been furiously upgrading and refurbishing aging plants—and minting money along the way.

But that work is almost done, and Business Week's Brian Hindo documents what Westinghouse is doing to move forward and retain its relevance:

Last fall the company won a contract to make repairs to Alloy 600, a metal that is found in old reactors. It had never done that before. Nor had it serviced a type of reactor that uses boiling, rather than pressurized, water to generate steam. Now it has a satellite office in San Jose, Calif., dedicated to such jobs.

But even this isn't the full point. That comes through Westinghouse's determination to push itself forward though taking on a culture of risk aversion and reversing it to allow the company to think outside hidebound assumptions and discover what else it could do and how it could do them:

[Engineering Services head Nick Liparulo] needed to send a strong signal that risk-taking wouldn't be a ticket out the door. At [University of Virginia's Darden School of Business professor Jeanne] Liedtka's suggestion, he took nine of his best managers and made them "growth leaders." Their sole responsibilities would be to chase down new technologies and markets.

As Liedtka's involvement suggests, this has more than a whiff of an academic business theory given form - expect many pop business books to come out about it if they haven't already - but the results are good and it has pushed Westinghouse forward. Read the whole article - it's a good, positive one and gets the weekend going right - and see if Westinghouse hasn't blown the dust off the velour and made it plush again.

Pennies from Heaven: A Nuclear Stock Fund

2008-05-09T10:34:00.001-04:00

For those of you more engaged with your financial portfolios than we are, take a look at this, courtesy of Kiplinger:

Investors who want to ride nuclear's revival without betting on individual stocks have a new option. Invesco PowerShares last month launched an exchange-traded fund called the Global Nuclear Energy Portfolio (symbol PKN). The ETF tracks the performance of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) Energy Index, which contains 64 companies that design, construct and operate nuclear power reactors. The shares closed at $27.08 on May 8.

And the fund is jam packed with the usual suspects, minus of course Keyser Soze:

The ETF's biggest holding, at 8.5% of assets, is Areva (ARVCF.PK), a French company. "Areva is one of just a handful of publicly traded companies in the world that both designs and builds reactors," says Phillips.

Other big holdings include Japan's Toshiba (TOSBF.PK), Emerson Electric (EMR) and Canada's Cameco (CCJ), a leading producer of uranium, the raw material that becomes fuel for nuclear reactors.

Writer Amy Bickers reviews the reasons nuclear has sprung back to life and offers a definition of an ETF:

ETFs are funds that track a particular index and trade on exchanges just like stocks. ETF prices move up and down, in line with the value of the securities they hold. ETFs contain mechanisms that keep the share prices close to the value of their holdings.

Whether the electricity market in general is responsive to this kind of financial instrument, we have no idea. If you took our advice on stocks, you'd have only yourself to blame if your next home was a giant-screen TV box in a low traffic corner of your local public park.

Perhaps the more financially savvy members of our readership can weigh in on the virtues and vices of this kind of offering. For us, it's interesting that outfits creating such offerings find nuclear energy something that might appeal to potential buyers.

The CBO Study on Nuclear Energy

2008-05-09T08:18:00.004-04:00

Your rainy weekend reading suggestion: the Congressional Budget Office's just released study,"Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity." The pull quote:

In the long run, carbon dioxide charges would increase the competitiveness of nuclear technology and could make it the least expensive source of new base-load capacity. More immediately, EPAct incentives by themselves could make advanced nuclear reactors a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. However, under some plausible assumptions that differ from those CBO adopted for its reference scenario—in particular, those that project higher future construction costs for nuclear plants or lower natural gas prices—nuclear technology would be a relatively expensive source of capacity, regardless of EPAct incentives. CBO’s analysis yields the following conclusions:
In the absence of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives, conventional fossil-fuel technologies would most likely be the least expensive source of new electricity-generating capacity.
Carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil-fuel technologies as a source of new capacity, even without EPAct incentives. At charges below that threshold, conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of base-load capacity than coal technology. Below about $5 per metric ton, conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.
Also at roughly $45 per metric ton, carbon dioxide charges would probably make nuclear generation competitive with existing coal power plants and could lead utilities in a position to do so to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants.
EPAct incentives would probably make nuclear generation a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity, even in the absence of carbon dioxide charges. However, because some of those incentives are backed by a fixed amount of funding, they would be diluted as the number of nuclear projects increased; consequently, CBO anticipates that only a few of the 30 plants currently being proposed would be built if utilities did not expect carbon dioxide charges to be imposed.
Uncertainties about future construction costs or natural gas prices could deter investment in nuclear power. In particular, if construction costs for new nuclear power plants proved to be as high as the average cost of nuclear plants built in the 1970s and 1980s or if natural gas prices fell back to the levels seen in the 1990s, then new nuclear capacity would not be competitive, regardless of the incentives provided by EPAct. Such variations in construction or fuel costs would be less likely to deter investment in new nuclear capacity if investors anticipated a carbon dioxide charge, but those charges would probably have to exceed $80 per metric ton in order for nuclear technology to remain competitive under either of those circumstances.

The study was written by Justin Falk, an analyst with the CBO's Microeconomic Studies Division, under the supervision of Joseph Kile and David Moore. Hat tip to the CBO Director's blog (?!), for the pointer to the study. You have to believe that when the Director of the CBO is blogging, this medium is here to stay.

Go West, Young Power Plant: Nuclear Energy in Alberta

2008-05-08T16:42:00.001-04:00

We've noted Ontario's interest in nuclear energy and now Alberta takes a crack at it (courtesy of The Prairie Post):

The debate about nuclear energy and whether it will have a future in Alberta has officially begun as Bruce Power Alberta begins the planning to build the first nuclear power plant in western Canada and the Alberta government appoints a committee to research whether nuclear energy should be pursued in the province.

That sounds like two stories, doesn't it, since Bruce Power is not going to get very far if the government research goes against it. Here's what Bruce Power has in mind:

Bruce Power, based in Ontario, purchased the assets of Energy Alberta Corporation and in March filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to prepare a site for the potential construction of the plant on Lac Cardinal near Peace River.

Peace River sounds kind of nice, but Bruce Power! Are all the boys in Canada named Bruce (who are not named Doug, that is)?

And here is what the provincial government is up to:

The [government-selected expert] panel will be asked to provide a comprehensive examination of: environmental, health and safety issues; waste management; comparing nuclear energy with other electricity generation technologies; current and future nuclear power generation being used in Canada and around the world; and Alberta's future electricity needs.

Naturally, writer Rose Sanchez rounds up opposition:

Mary Griffiths, a senior policy analyst with Pembina, says nuclear energy isn't the answer. Instead the greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands [?] should be dealt with through carbon capture and storage technologies.

Well, that would be good, we guess, if carbon capture and storage technologies were actually ready to be implemented. Curiously, the Pembina Institute sells wind power. Sanchez doesn't mention this, a bit of a journalistic breach - a reporter should come clean when a source might have a financial interest in zinging a competitor.

---

Here's a description of a Pembina Institute book called "Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability."

In addition to the fact that nuclear power is not itself a [greenhouse gas (GHG)] emission free energy source, a future path based on nuclear energy would simply replace one problem (GHG emissions) with a series of different, but equally unacceptable impacts and risks. These encompass everything from facility reliability and waste management to the potential for catastrophic accidents and nuclear weapons proliferation.

<rant> Feh! This sounds like the building-a-plant-produces-greenhouse-gas thing again plus long discredited arguments. You can download the whole book as a pdf on their site if you want. And hey, Pembina, windmills don't magically erect themselves - we have to assume there's some heavy machinery involved that's less than enviro-friendly. </rant>

---

Ahem! Let's see how what expert panel finds out and wish Bruce Power luck. Alberta seems likely to join the atom club, especially if they lean on the work already done in Ontario and elsewhere to vet nuclear energy.

Thanks to Trails Canada for the map.

The Zeal and the Zealots

2008-05-07T17:07:00.001-04:00

While reading The Chicago Tribune's coverage of the super-important, fun-and-sun drenched Nuclear Energy Assembly, this paragraph stuck out:

Dave Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Evanston, views this as further evidence that the free components of a summer weekend—sunshine and a cool breeze—will be better energy sources.

"Those are far superior choices and they can come online much faster than new nukes," Kraft said. "The nuclear industry is well overplaying their hand."

We've got nothing against our friends in the solar and wind business, but "far superior?" I guess the article - which is more a roundup of what prominent attendees are thinking about nuclear these days rather than direct coverage of the conference - demanded a he-said, she-said approach, but from our perspective, it felt like the writer, Joshua Boak, had dropped a spider on the valentine.

So what is the Nuclear Energy Information Service? Here's a bit from their latest action alert:

The nuclear industry has never met a law, regulation or agreement it was not willing to ignore or actively seek to overturn if the opportunity or need suited them. That is perhaps why NEIS has never been willing to "negotiate" with Exelon and its predecessors; negotiating anything with them is a lose-lose proposition. The only language they understand is to be defeated -- utterly, wholly and without compromise -- and in no uncertain terms.

Yikes! All that's missing is a denouncement of Exelon's employees as jack-booted thugs. If you want to see what else they're up to, you can watch their video:

In cooperation with CAN-TV, NEIS produced a 30-minute DVD and cable TV segment on GNEP entitled "GNEP: Nuclear Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." This program can be viewed on Google TV at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1498918502264826711

Actually GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) is a nuclear wolf in wolf's clothing - it doesn't try to hide anything. It isn't even terribly wolfish.

NEIS seems more than a collection of anti-nuclear kooks but less than a crowd of folks engaging an issue. This is a pretty zealous bunch - nothing wrong with that, of course, except that zealots tend to have steel trap minds that have snapped shut. There's just nothing to be said to them that constitutes an argument.

I may have overlooked something on their exceptionally dense web site, but I didn't see any engagement at all with the nuclear energy industry - in fact, their action alert indicates Exelon is, at best, pushing down old ladies and kicking dogs. That's a real shame, though, because a distaste for nuclear energy - or anything - can be better honed if pitted against its opposite. And, of course, if it can survive the experience of being challenged.

I do sincerely hope that Dave Kraft pays a visit to NEA. He may find some of his attitudes confirmed, some shaken, some stirred.

Update on Georgia Power, Vogtle

2008-05-07T16:32:00.004-04:00

Georgia Power, plurality owner of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, announced today it did not receive any bids in response to its 2016-2017 base load capacity RFP. From the press release,

...Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) rules require market bids to be compared with self-build proposals, but no market bids were received.

The company's self-build nuclear proposal will be reviewed by the Georgia PSC's Independent Evaluator before the company submits a final recommendation to the Georgia PSC on August 1, 2008 for approval. A final certification decision is expected in March 2009.

If certified by the Georgia PSC and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the two Westinghouse AP1000 units, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each, would be constructed at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site near Waynesboro, Georgia and would be placed in service in 2016 and 2017, respectively.

Also Heard from the NEA Podium, Day 2

2008-05-07T13:41:00.003-04:00

“Building a coal plant has more risk now than a nuclear plant. … With possible carbon constraints and [natural] gas prices going up, we can’t meet our electricity needs going forward without nuclear energy.”
- Michael J. Wallace, Vice Chairman, Constellation Energy Nuclear; Chairman, UniStar

“This country is going to need new nuclear power plants.”
- Robert Malone, Chairman and President, BP America Inc.

”I think nuclear could be an important part of energy supply for the United States and the world, but there are tough challenges ahead. Nuclear is not a silver bullet for global warming. If there is one, it’s energy efficiency.”
- Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

“Nuclear power is the only technology we have that can be deployed over the next two decades to address global warming. It is our best hope in the short term until we get to renewables and efficiency.”
- William Johnson, Chairman, CEO and President, Progress Energy

“You are in the catbird’s seat. If we see carbon legislation, we will see more nuclear.”
- Ned Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy

JoAnn Sperber

Also Heard from the NEA Podium

2008-05-06T15:18:00.010-04:00

This morning’s Nuclear Energy Assembly session explored the socio-economic trends pointing to a vital role for nuclear power in our nation’s energy mix. Here is a sampling from the wide-ranging roster of speakers:

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, satisfying growing energy demand, making energy affordable and enhancing energy security are tasks that are difficult enough individually, but we need to do all of them at the same time. There’s no way around it: this effort requires bold leadership. We need our policymakers to look ahead and understand that we’re living in a new world that requires new approaches.” – Jack Gerard, president and CEO, American Chemistry Council

“Our top priority is the safe operation of the current fleet of U.S. nuclear power plants, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also a global leader in safe regulation. We need to keep our place at the table to ensure a consistent regulatory environment.” – Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

“We have a strategic partnership between the nuclear energy industry and the Building and Construction Trades Department. Ours is an unusual relationship in Washington between organized labor and an industry. We have a common set of interests and mutual respect. We must strengthen our relationship further to enhance our chances of success in the halls of Congress.” – Mark Ayers, president, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO

“I wish you great good luck on your endeavors for nuclear power. You are at the right moment. Go for it.” – Peggy Noonan, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and author

JoAnn Sperber

Industry Leaders State the Facts

2008-05-06T14:51:00.004-04:00

Poised on the brink of the largest capital investment program in its history, nuclear energy industry leaders this morning opened their 55th annual conference with pledges to face facts squarely and appraise the challenges and opportunities honestly as nuclear power energizes a low-carbon future.

Skip Bowman, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, told nearly 500 industry executives gathered in Chicago for the Nuclear Energy Assembly that a factual presentation and reasoned approach would make the nuclear resurgence a reality. He marshaled several facts to make his point:

One million megawatts of electricity-generating capacity powers America’s grid, but 45 percent of that infrastructure is more than 30 years old. Meanwhile, the nation has deferred investment in new, more efficient baseload plants, including new reactors.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act’s loan guarantee program is a “very small step” in the right direction, but insufficient to rebuild electric power infrastructure.
The nation and world are seeking clean-air energy sources, like nuclear, to address climate change.
Electricity demand will increase by 25 percent by 2030, according to government officials.

“There is no credible strategy to address the conundrum of climate change and increasing electricity demand unless nuclear power is part of the portfolio,” Bowman said.

John Rowe, president, CEO and chairman of Exelon Corp., called for a “hardheaded approach” to what is needed to bring about nuclear’s resurgence.

He detailed the industry’s “steady progress,” including the filing of nine construction and operating license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 15 new reactors in the United States, a drumbeat of announcements about companies ordering long-lead components, and state policymaker support for new-reactor construction.

“There is a growing need for baseload generation and a need to find ways to address the climate challenge,” Rowe said.

“Each of the three candidates for president has taken a clear position on the need for action on climate change,” he noted. “We can only hope that will translate into realistic support for new nuclear generation.”

Rowe added, “It is simply not possible for rational policymakers to think we can solve our national goals for economic security, energy security or environmental security without a large block of new nuclear power plants.”

JoAnn Sperber

Chickens Come Home? The U.S. and Russia Sign Nuclear Energy Agreement

2008-05-06T11:22:00.001-04:00

The United States and Russia have signed a civilian nuclear cooperation pact with far-reaching implications, including opening American markets to Russia and likewise opening Russia's uranium fields to the United States. However, Russia's tromping around the minarets of Iran looking for advantage - plus lending a hand on Iran's nuclear plant - could still scuttle the agreement as it wends its way through Congress for approval. Are chickens coming home to roost? Here's the deal:

The deal will open up the booming U.S. nuclear market and Russia's vast uranium fields to firms from both countries. Without a deal, cooperation potentially worth billions of dollars was severely limited and required official consent.

And some more details:

The deal will give the U.S. access to Russian state-of-the art nuclear technology. ... The U.S. is especially interested in developments in areas including fast-neutron reactors and recycling nuclear fuel.

Russia in turn will be able to achieve its goal of establishing an international nuclear fuel storage facility by importing and storing spent fuel. Russia cannot achieve the goal without signing the deal, since the U.S. controls the vast majority of the world's nuclear fuel.

Siberia as the new Yucca Mountain? "Russian state-of-the-art nuclear technology?" Well, we'll see - sounds a bit like a sales pitch, but the result could be very dramatic, allowing Atomenergoprom, Russia's nuclear combine, to compete here with companies like Entergy and AREVA.

But here's the rub:

But the U.S. House of Representatives is already on record as saying the United States should shun civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia because of Moscow's aid in building Iran's plant at Bushehr and supplying it with fuel. A similar bill with some 70 co-sponsors is pending in the Senate.

Which means the Senate's all in. The United States already has a similar pact with China, so this agreement isn't outlandish - it's really the politics of Iran that are weighing against it in the House, and that may die out when the sabers have been properly rattled. After all, Bush has had the pointiest sword and his is sheathed for the moment.

Two additional points. First, Russia's parliament has to pass on this as well and is likely to do so - if Russia creates a repository, however, we'll see how or if NIMBY concerns play there and how much weight our environmental concerns are given. And, second, Presidents Bush and Putin are both lame ducks - Putin is handling off power to Dmitry Medvedev Wednesday and Bush, of course, is done in January. We don't know enough about Russian politics - except that Medvedev is usually referred to as having been "hand-picked" by Putin - to comment. But waiting out Bush's last days could cause the bills in Congress to languish until a new President signs on. As they say, developing...

---

Incidentally, if the agreement works as touted, it would be a step in the direction Hilary Clinton is looking for, as her proxy said in the post noted below:

"Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said.

Well, there you go. Hello, Russia!

---

PS: we know the picture of Putin above looks a little sinister, but it is a striking photo. No stray commentary intended by it - though if you're inclined to supply your own, have at it.

Nuclear Energy and the Presidential Candidates

2008-05-06T08:56:00.004-04:00

Reuters is running an article today, Nuclear energy heats up US presidential campaign, that provides a handy one-pager on the candidates and their support for nuclear energy.

John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed. Nuclear power—controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world—is on the agenda of all three U.S. presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.

Update: Reuters has published a sidebar, Factbox, presenting each candidate's positions in more detail.

More on GE Hitachi

2008-05-05T14:44:00.001-04:00

Last week, we reported on the agreement GE Hitachi made with North Carolina to hire 900 more workers, retain their current staff of about 2300 and spend over $700 million expanding their corporate headquarters - which presumably they'd have to do to fit in 900 more bodies.

Later that same day, GE Hitachi indicated some of what they are going to do with those hires and that money:

Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a subsidiary of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), has announced it has selected GEH's Wilmington headquarters site for a potential commercial uranium enrichment facility. The planned GEH plant would result in the creation of hundreds of new technical, operational and support jobs at the site between now and 2012.

"Hundreds," here, is not the full 900 touted by the state, but it's a good start. The uranium enrichment facility is described thusly:

The cutting-edge laser enrichment isotope separation technology allows GEH to become further integrated in the nuclear fuel cycle; already, Wilmington-based Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas, a joint venture of GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, is involved in the fuel cycle. [Global Nuclear Fuel's] site currently receives low enriched uranium, which is then used to fabricate fuel bundles for commercial nuclear power plants. The commercial GLE enrichment facility could potentially become a supplier of low enriched uranium to the Wilmington GNF fabrication facility.

Note that this Wilmington is in North Carolina - yes, GE Hitachi headquarters - not Delaware.

Feels a bit like GE Hitachi has subsidiaries to keep other subsidiaries busy supplying materials to yet other subsidiaries, the business version of a perpetual motion device. But it creates an ecosystem that gives GE Hitachi a marked competitive advantage even while they wager on the efficacy of nuclear energy going forward. Pretty safe bet, we'd say, plus it allows a cushion for the company should it misjudge what the market needs. (GLE is currently creating a demo project to decide whether to go forward with a commercial plant.)

We've talked about the benefits of the nuclear renaissance to the economy, but it's especially pleasing to see it start to take root in communities. GE Hitachi stands to do much good in Wilmington and New Hanover County, perhaps fathering an extension of North Carolina's so-called Research Triangle in the Raleigh-Durham area to their neck of the woods, good salaries and all.

We seem to be on a bit of a GE Hitachi jag lately, and they are a member of NEI, so suspicions of log rolling acknowledged and, hey!, denied. The company has lately embodied the themes we've been tracing as nuclear energy springs back to life and has been interesting to test against those themes. So far so good, but maybe we'll see what Entergy or AREVA's been up to lately.

Good Morning, Vietnam

2008-05-05T10:59:00.001-04:00

We'll know this month if Vietnam will be joining the nuclear family, but the signs are good:

A law on nuclear energy is expected to be approved by the National Assembly this month, paving the way for the country’s first nuclear power plant. An investment report and procedures to build the plant in southern Ninh Thuan Province would be completed and given the all clear by the NA next year, deputy director of the Electricity of Vietnam (EVN), Nguyen Manh Hung said.

The story notes that the country has had to get cracking on bringing its workforce up-to-speed for this project, but nuclear energy has been on the radar for awhile.

The country currently [as of 2004] has a 500-kW research reactor at the Da Lat Nuclear Research Institute, with a workforce of three assistant professors, eight doctors, 30 masters and 82 engineers.

I could not find information on what kind of plant Vietnam might be planning or from what source - France's AREVA seems a good potential partner, but the two countries' history might not make France the go-to partner of choice. (The story says the plant will have four turbines with a combined capacity of 4,000MW worth US$6 billion. Seems a bargain.)

Another story from the Vietnam News Agency suggests some possibilities.

A visiting delegation of representatives from major US corporations arrived in Vietnam yesterday to start seeking business opportunities on a trip organised annually by the US-ASEAN Business Council (USABC).

...

The delegation comprises 50 high-ranking officials from 23 groups and companies, including the General Electric Company, AES, Boeing, Chevron and ConocoPhilips. The tour is led by USABC chairman Matthew P. Daley and Stuart Dean, the president of GE Southeast Asia.

The company to note here is GE, whose GE Hitachi unit could be very useful (but note comment about AREVA above and apply here). It's early days and presumably, Vietnam has a process to go through that has not even begun yet. Forgive a little anticipatory excitement - let's see how that vote goes.

Photograph used with kind permission of vietnam-in-pictures.com.