Giving Thanks:

Nuclear Power Progress

On this Thanksgiving Day, I have only a moment to reflect on the past year and think about giving thanks.  Most of my thanks, of course, is for family and friends, and for health and well-being.

But I also want to reflect on some positive developments in the nuclear field:

• Despite the severity of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, there are still likely to be very few health effects from the releases of radiation.
•  
• Although some countries have used the Fukushima accident to try to reject nuclear power for the future, in most of the world, the public and the policy-makers continue to recognize the need for continued development and use of nuclear power. 
•  
• In these countries, the industry is using the lessons learned from Fukushima to further strengthen the safety of operating reactors. 
•  
• There is indeed a Renaissance taking place in nuclear power deployment, at the very least, in countries like China and India.
•  
• The U.S. continues to recognize the need to develop new nuclear technologies, and this week has seen the award of a long-awaited contract for small reactor development.

With that, let me wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

***

Nuclear Power Education and Training:

Fit for KINGS

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a brand new education and training venture for the nuclear field.  Since I don't think the school is widely known yet, I thought it might be useful to describe it.

Korea's KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School, or KINGS, opened its doors just about a year ago.  Situated on a brand-new campus in between the Kori and Shin-Kori units near Busan, the school now consists of two new buildings, a dormitory and a classroom/administration building, about 50 students, and about 15 faculty members. 

At present, most of the faculty and students are Korean, but they have a number of students from such countries that are building or contemplating nuclear reactors, including the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Malaysia, Vietnam.  South Africa, which already has operating reactors, is also represented in the student body.

The permanent faculty presently includes one American, Jay Z. James, who (among other positions) previously ran his own consulting firm for over 20 years and taught in Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department.  KINGS has also had several visiting faculty, including myself, teach for short terms.

All classes are conducted in English.  The students are all young professionals who have completed their academic training and have worked for a few years.  Thus, they bring with them a basic engineering education and some practical experience in the working world. 

The focus of the school is intended to be hands-on and practical, so the 2-year curriculum includes a mix of nuclear engineering courses and courses on such topics as project management, operations and maintenance, and plant economics.  The intent is also to take advantage of being on the campus of an operating reactor facility.

As far as I know, what the school is seeking to do is unique.  While there are shorter courses focused on practical training, I don't know of any other program that offers such a combination of the practical and the academic in such an in-depth, extended program.

The program should be particularly valuable for the students who come from countries planning nuclear programs, as this may be their first exposure to actual facilities and to many of the non-academic aspects of running a nuclear power program.    

While the program is in its early phases and is not yet at its full anticipated size, the school anticipates expanding its staff and faculty over the next year or two.  Given what I observed in my short time there, it is well on its way to becoming a recognized element in the spectrum of education and training available to individuals in the nuclear profession.

***

Energy Production and Paper Cups:

Measuring the Impacts

I was traveling through Harrisonburg, Virginia a couple of weeks ago and stopped for lunch with my husband at a local barbecue joint.  I ordered a glass of iced tea with my meal.  When the iced tea came, I saw some text on the side of it.  Now, I have always been a voracious reader, and I can't tell you how many times I've sat at the breakfast table and read cereal boxes and the like, so although I just expected advertising or something, I simply had to read the text curling around the cup.

The iced tea was in a foam cup, and the text explained that paper cups produce 148% more waste by weight than foam cups.  Sounds good, right?  Except that the last time I checked, landfill is limited by volume, not by weight, and paper cups are thinner than foam cups.  Furthermore, paper is biodegradable, and foam generally is not. 

Admittedly, advances are being made in foam products, and some are biodegradable, but the cup didn't boast of being biodegradable.  I can't be absolutely sure, but after touting its weight advantages, I would have to believe it would have broadcast its biodegradability as well--if it were biodegradable.  But it didn't.

So what does this have to do with energy production?  Too often, I have seen promoters of various energy sources treat their products the same way--picking out the positives without presenting the whole picture.  Thus, we hear about how much wind or solar capacity has been built, but we aren't told that the fraction of power supplied by these sources is much smaller than the built capacity.  We also hear about how solar or wind or nuclear energy produce no greenhouse gases, but we aren't always told that each of these produces some other forms of waste.  We hear that natural gas or "clean coal" is cleaner than oil or regular coal and is produced domestically, but we don't hear how they compare to nuclear or solar or wind power, and we don't hear that very little of our electricity is generated from oil-fired plants. 

I could go on.  But this is no different from all the other things we use in our daily lives--paper versus plastic bags, genetically-modifed versus non-GM crops, electric cars versus gasoline-powered cars.  And foam cups versus paper cups.

The point, as always, is that every source of energy has multiple dimensions, some very positive, some negative--and some that can potentially be overcome with further technology development.  Yes, this makes it complex and problematical to compare sources.  Yes, it means that there is no one perfect source that we should rely on completely.

The "right" energy solution, and the "right" solution for almost everything else we use, is likely to involve a mix of options, and is likely to create continual pressure to reduce the downsides of each of these technologies.

*** 

Nuclear News:

Some Positive Signs

I have become so accustomed to hearing about Fukushima, or more recently, about the trials and tribulations at some US nuclear power plants, that I have almost forgotten that there is a lot happening in the nuclear world, some of it very encouraging.  This week seems to have had more than the usual share of promising reports.  What is even more encouraging is that they come from a number of fronts.

In the US, Southern Company got a go-ahead from the USNRC to change the concrete mix in order to counter a problem discovered with the rebar in the building basemats for Vogtle 3 and 4.  In addition, Uranerz received a permit from the State of Wyoming to begin drilling deep disposal wells for in-site mining at its Nichols Branch uranium mine in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.  These reports follow closely on the heels of a public opinion survey that showed that public opinion in the U.S. in favor of nuclear power is again increasing.

Around the world, there are more positive signs.  The World Nuclear Association publishes a weekly digest of news, and this week's list includes the following headlines:

• China flags return to new nuclear plant approvals
• Canadian reactor returns to service after four years 
• Brits remain positive re nuclear power
• Queensland to allow uranium mining after 23 year ban
• New uranium mine go-ahead in South Australia.

(Please note that the link to the October 25 weekly summary will change when next week's summary is issued, but the individual stories on these and other news items will be moved to the WNA archives.)

Of course, all this news does not obscure the fact that the nuclear industry continues to face serious challenges, both in the U.S. and abroad.  However, it does suggest that there is a broad base of support for nuclear power in many parts of the world, and that the industry is forging ahead on a number of fronts.  

***

The Real Waste Problem:

Not Just a Nuclear Problem

A relatively new blog (at least to me) from "a couple of MIT engineers" has had several interesting posts lately.  Today, I want to comment on one that analyzes the waste streams from solar versus nuclear power. 

While most public attention focuses on the waste from nuclear power plants--it is dangerous, it lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and we "haven't solved the problem of where to put it," some of us have long noted that it is not only nuclear power that produces wastes.  ALL sources of energy do.

The MIT post points out a number of facts that are useful in comparing the waste streams from nuclear power plants versus solar power plants:

•  The volume of waste from solar plants is many times that from nuclear plants.

•  Much of the waste from nuclear plants is not really waste.  It can be recycled.

•  The cadmium and lead wastes from solar power plants are poisonous.

•  Unlike nuclear power wastes, where the radioactivity decreases over time, the poisonous chemical wastes from solar power plants last forever.

I have always been a little uncomfortable with the last argument.  It is true, but on the time scales involved for the decay of radioactivity, the reality is that both waste streams need to be sequestered for a very long time.

While both nuclear and solar wastes can potentially be recycled, the blogpost notes that recycling solar panels requires a substantial amount of energy, while recycling used nuclear fuel results in a net energy gain.

These observations demonstrate that ALL energy sources have downsides.  Even energy sources that are often thought of as natural and benign in fact have their own environmental impacts.  This does not mean that we should not use solar power.  Likewise, the existence of nuclear wastes does not mean that we should not use nuclear power.  The point is that we all need to understand that no energy source is completely clean or safe.

*** 

Emergency Preparedness:

The Role of Nuclear Power Plants 

I was not surprised to read a recent article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette about the findings and conclusions of a report from the National Academy of Sciences on emergency preparedness, particularly with regard to the link between nuclear power plants and the emergency preparedness of surrounding communities.

In particular, the report found that there was a strong and positive link between the effectiveness of emergency response measures taken during the floods in Cedar Rapids in 2008 and the emergency response preparedness at the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant nearby.  (Downloads of the Academy report, "Disaster Resilience:  A National Imperative," are available at the National Academies Press website.)

This is not at all surprising.  The fact that emergency response preparations are required for a nuclear power plant means that the community has prepared and rehearsed for an emergency.  It means that plant, city, county and state personnel have the training and equipment and facilities needed to handle a disaster.  It means that people have been assigned responsibilities and have drilled together and practiced what to do.

In the end, it often doesn't matter what the nature of the disaster is.  All disasters have some elements in common.  Information about the nature and extent of the problem needs to be obtained and assessed.  Appropriate authorities need to be notified.  Instructions need to be provided to local personnel, as well as to members of the public.  If evacuation is needed, provisions have to be made for schools and hospitals.

Mike Goldberg, director of Linn County Emergency Management, reported that, during the flooding in 2008, “Everybody came in and sat down at their usual table with their usual phone and usual maps and usual equipment,” he recalled. “It was just not a radiological event. It was a flood event. But they did the same mission.”

In fact, this is not the first time that the emergency response preparations for a nuclear power plant have been implemented for a totally different kind of emergency.  When I worked at NRC, I recall one incident where a truckload with a hazardous chemical spilled on a highway in an area that had a nuclear power plant nearby.  In that case, too, the preparations for a nuclear emergency proved to be very applicable and helpful for handling the emergency response for the chemical spill. 

Obviously, having a nuclear power plant in the neighborhood is not the only way to prepare for an emergency situation.  Most communities have some vulnerabilities, whether it be to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or chemical spills on highways, so all communities would do well to prepare for such incidents.  However, in practice, the more specific and stringent requirements imposed for nuclear power plants are a powerful spur to assuring that the necessary plans for an emergency are developed and maintained--usually at levels well beyond that for other potential emergency situations.  This preparation often goes unrecognized--at least until and unless a non-nuclear disaster occurs.  Thus, it was interesting to see such recognition in the case of the Cedar Rapids flood. 

*** 

Nuclear Power and Costs:

A Surprisingly Complex Issue

I have been reading quite a few articles lately about the costs of nuclear power.  Not surprisingly, they are all over the place.  Some articles cite the high costs of continuing to operate nuclear power plants.  Others cite the high costs of abandoning existing nuclear power plants.  The truth is not always easy to ferret out.

While I can't, in a single essay, fully analyze all the points raised in all the articles, I think it is useful to look at some of the articles and some of the points that have been made.  This blog is my first humble attempt to do that.

The first report I'd like to look at is an argument that maintaining nuclear power at 15 or 20% of the 2030 total energy mix in Japan would actually have a marginally higher cost than phasing it out completely.  This statement comes from a Japan Times report on a speech by Softbank CEO and renewable energy advocate Masayoshi Son.  Since this assertion seemed contradictory to me, I tried to look at a few of the factors mentioned in the news article.  The article indicates that Son mentioned the insurance costs in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, the costs related to running a nuclear power plant past 40 years, decommissioning costs, and what to do with the nuclear waste.

Now, I must say that the question of how future insurance requirements for nuclear power plants in Japan will be treated is a great unknown.  I have seen no reports on the subject, so consider it an unknown at this point.  However, the other costs that Son mentions surprised me.  The usual assumptions with regard to operation beyond 40 years is that most of the costs of the plant are sunk costs and the continued operating cost is very small.  True, sometimes upgrades are necessary for longer-term operation, but these are normally a very small fraction of the cost of a new nuclear power plant--or for that matter, a very small fraction of the cost of building any kind of replacement power.  Decommissioning and waste disposal will be required whether the plants are shut down today, in 2030, or beyond that.  There may be some marginal differences (yes, more waste will be generated), but they should be relatively small.  They should not be sufficient to make an earlier shutdown of nuclear power plants a more cost-effective option.

On the other side of the equation, the article does not report Son as making any estimates of the cost of replacing existing facilities with new renewable power plants.  Every cost study I have seen indicates that there is a very substantial cost for any replacement power generation facilities, and particularly for solar or wind power plants.

Some measure of the cost of ending nuclear power completely was provided by the Japanese government, which estimated the cost of ending the use of nuclear power in Japan by 2030 at $637 billion for the replacement power needed, and estimated that would nearly double the monthly energy bill of the average Japanese household.  Once again, there is insufficient information in the article to allow me to confirm quantitatively that the numbers make sense, although qualitatively, they do fit my assertion that the costs of building solar and wind replacements would be large.

One article tried to represent both sides of the story--the Japanese government's case that ending nuclear power will be costly, and the anti-nuclear side's case that energy use can be cut.  The article had one quote that households will use 60-70% less electricity by 2030 than they do today, and therefore, would actually have lower electricity bills!  Having lived in Japan, I can tell you that the price of electricity is already much higher than the price in the US--and that Japanese already use far less energy than Americans do.  That may be no surprise, but I will add that the difference is not merely one of wasting less.  Life in a Japanese apaato (the Japanese word for apartment) is far less comfortable and less convenient than life in the average American home.  I was actually told by my utility company that I could not have air conditioning on even in one room and run the washing machine at the same time if I also wanted to keep the refrigerator and some lights on!

Of course, more can always be done to improve the efficiency of energy use, but I doubt that the average Japanese household will be able to reduce energy use by 60-70% in the next 18 years without huge sacrifices.  And without at least some heat and air conditioning, I would predict that one of the consequences will be an increase in the death rate among the ill and elderly.

In the US, the Business Council of Westchester pegged the cost of closing Indian Point at $11.5 billion.  In that case, the estimated impact on electric rates is only 6.3%.  Again, it is hard to get to the bottom of these numbers, but clearly, the loss of one nuclear power plant in a region is not the same as the loss of all nuclear power plants in a country.

***