Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire

Thursday, November 11, 2010

UAE Missile Deal Worth 140 Million Announced from Military Space News, Nuclear Weapons, Missile Defense

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UAE_Missile_Deal_Worth_140_Million_Announced_999.htmlWashington DC (SPX) Nov 11, 2010

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress November 3 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the United Arab Emirates of 100 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and 60 Low Cost Reduced-Range Practice Rockets (LCRRPR), as well as associated equipment, training and logistical support for a total package worth approximately $140 million.

Charles Forsberg's views on Generation IV nuclear costs from The Nuclear Green Revolution by Charles Barton

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/11/charles-forsbergs-views-on-generation.html

ORNL MSR development work focused almost exclusively on MSBRs, although Ed Bettis's reactor design shop did design some deep burn MSR converters. The AEC was interested in breeder reactors, so the ORNL focus was on the development of a MSBR, rather than on possibly simpler converters. During the 1960's the cost of Light Water Reactors (LWRs) was believed to be low. Indeed by the time the dramatic reactor cost inflation of the 1970's had taken place, the MSR was no longer in the picture, and thus its potential for competing with the LWR on costs never became a topic for discussion. ORNL designers during the early 1970's had concluded that the cost of the MSBR was competitive with the cost of LWRs, but no attempt had been made to compare the cost of a MSR converter, to LWR costs.

In retrospective the failure to view the MSR as a potential replacement to the LWR, was an unfortunate product of faulty assumptions based on incomplete information. The incomplete information pertained to Light Water Reactor costs, and the faulty assumptions had to do with the desirability of the LWR as a competitor of coal fired power plants. As it turned out the LWR was by the early 1980's at a definite cost disadvantage compared to coal fired power plants, and was widely seen by the public as suffering from disadvantages with respect to the environment, and human health and safety. In retrospective the health and safety issues appear to have been largely solved by 1980. The Three Mile Island accident showed that even a major reactor accident would produce no casualties or environmental costs. Thus Three Mile Island demonstrated that the health, safety and environmental protection approaches philosophy adopted by American reactor manufacturers was sound. However, the technology protecting health, safety and the environmental came at a considerable monetary cost, a cost which was to cripple prospects for further growth of the nuclear industry for over a generation.

In the meantime Molten Salt Reactor technology languished, although a small group of ORNL staff members and a similarly small group of MSR international fans sought to revive interest in Molten Salt Nuclear technology.

It was only after the beginning of the 21st century that the use of Molten Salt coolants began to be seen as a low cost alternative Generation IV approach to nuclear power. This view emerged from Charles Forsberg one of the ORNL MSR old hands. Forsberg's view appears to have been that breeder technology was an encumbrance on Molten Salt development, and that a marriage of technology used for gas cooled reactors and molten salt based coolants had many attractive features. While the development of Molten Salt Reactor technology had largely stood still for a generation, the development of gas cooled reactors had advanced, and that technology was ready for implementation. Yet Gas cooled reactors suffered from a technical flaw, that would lead to high costs. Gasses are relatively unsatisfactory reactor coolants, especially when compared to liquid coolants like water, sodium, of molten salts. As a consequence, a lot of gas is required to cool a reactor core, and consequently the core must be large. This means a lot of material will go into gas cooled reactor construction compared to reactor power output. Liquid salts used in the Molten Salt Reactor are excellent coolants. What Forsberg noticed that aside from the size differences, there were a lot of structural similarities between Molten Salt Reactors and Gas Cooled Reactors. Both reactor types featured a coolant flowing through a graphite nuclear core. The graphite provided both core structure and neutron moderation.

The largest difference between the Gas Cooled Reactor and the Molten Salt Reactor was

the placement of the nuclear fuel. In the gas cooled reactor the fuel was embedded in the graphite, while in the MSR, the fuel (U-233, U-235. or Pu-239) was mixed with the molten salt coolant. The classic MSR was useful for a nuclear economy that assumed a limited or expensive uranium supply. Uranium and possibly thorium mixed with the MSR carrier salts, could be easily processed along with their nuclear byproducts. Processing uranium or thorium embedded in core graphite, while not impossible, was potentially more complicated. Forsberg's view only made since if nuclear breeding would be unnecessary for the next century or so. As it turned out this is Forsberg's view. Thus Forsberg concluded that it was not only possible to build a hybrid reactor using already mature Molten Salt and graphite embedded fuel technologies. Not only was it possible, but the resulting reactor, the Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR) was very attractive. Forsberg did not directly compare the AHTR to the LWR but he did offer comparisons between the AHTR and other Generation IV reactor types. Forsberg compared variants of the AHTR with two other Generation IV reactor designs, an IFR, the General Electric sodium-cooled S-PRISM, and the gas cooled General Atomic Modular High-Temperature Reactor (GT-MHR). Forsberg argued that the AHTR would cost between 55% and 49% of the cost of the S-PRISM, and 61% and 53% of the GT-MHR.

Foorsberg noted that several factors would would contribute to the lower AHtR cost:

• Higher efficiency. The higher temperature implies higher efficiency (~50% vs 42%). This results in lower costs per kilowatt (electric) because of the smaller power conversion equipment, cooling systems to reject heat from the power cycle, and smaller decay-heat-removal systems.

• Passive decay heat removal. The higher AHTR temperatures, combined with the high-temperature fuel, enable the development of passive safety systems for large reactors. Passive safety systems have the potential for lower costs.

• Reduced containment requirements. The molten salt coolant avoids the potential for steam−sodium interactions, absorbs radionuclides that escape the fuel, and eliminates highly energetic accidents, all of which lower containment requirements.

• Reduced equipment sizes. Volumetric heat capacities for molten salts are several times larger than those for sodium. This reduces the size of pipes, valves, and heat exchangers per unit of energy transferred.

• Transparent coolant. Unlike liquid metals, molten salts are transparent. This simplifies maintenance and inspection of the primary system with significant cost advantages.

it should be noted that Forsberg's thinking did not extend to the potential cost savings advantages of small modular reactors. But Per Peterson was shortly to refine Forsberg's analysis in a number of respects, and his findings. in my next post I intend to review Peterson's analysis.

It should be noted, however, that Forsberg's cost estimates are far too low. Thus it is not the cost estimate but the relationship between reactor costs for different nuclear technologies. It should be noted that TVA rebuilt its Browns Ferry unit 1 reactor between 2002 and 2007 at a cost of $1.9 billion, $1720 per kW, that is higher than Forsberg's estimate of new Generation IV reactor costs. Despite these difficulties, it would appear that Forsberg's hybrid reactor offered a promising rout to lower nuclear power costs.

Venezuela puts nuclear over oil from World Nuclear News by Warwick Pipe

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Venezuelas_puts_nuclear_over_oil_1111101.html

Venezuela expects a nuclear reactor to save it $1 billion per year by increasing the amount of oil it exports, but a lot of work remains to realise the promise of nuclear cooperation with Russia.

Controlling Tactical Nuclear Weapons from CFR.org - The Council on Foreign Relations by Council on Foreign Relations

Micah Zenko argues that controlling U.S. and Russian supplies of tactical nuclear weapons would reduce the potential for nuclear terrorism, decrease the perceived threat to U.S. allies, and maintain momentum toward President Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Nuclear deal between Russia, Australia goes into force

http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Nuclear_deal_between_Russia_Australia_goes_into_force_999.html

Seoul (AFP) Nov 11, 2010 A nuclear cooperation agreement between Russia and Australia went into force Thursday after their two leaders exchanged notes to ratify the deal. Under the agreement Australia will sell uranium to Russia, against the advice of an Australian parliamentary committee.
Legislators had called for the deal to be blocked unless Russia met a number of conditions, including speeding up reforms to separate civilian and military nuclear plants.
"To open a new page, we have a good event today, an exchange of ratification notes," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard at a meeting before the opening of the G20 summit in Seoul.
The agreement, which allows Australian uranium to be enriched in Russia and used in Russian nuclear reactors, was signed in Sydney in 2007 and ratified by the lower house of Russia's parliament this summer.
It last for 30 years but can remain in force indefinitely if there are no objections from either side.
The agreement means uranium supplied to Russia can be used only for peaceful purposes, must meet International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and can be used only in facilities agreed by Australia.
A previous agreement signed in 1990 specified that Australian uranium supplied to Russia could be enriched for use by third countries only.

Major powers against solving nuclear issue: Ahmadinejad

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Major_powers_against_solving_nuclear_issue_Ahmadinejad_999.html

Tehran (AFP) Nov 11, 2010 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said major powers are against solving the controversy surrounding Iran's nuclear programme, state television reported on its website on Thursday. "In the next few days, the dialogue will commence but our experience shows that they are not seeking to solve the issue," Ahmadinejad said, referring to upcoming talks with six countries over Tehran's nuclear drive.
"From our side the issue has already been solved and we will continue our peaceful nuclear activities. The Western countries are arrogant and do not take others into account."
The talks are aimed at allaying Western concerns that Iran's nuclear programme is masking a weapons drive under the guise of a civilian programme, something Tehran denies.
Iran has proposed the talks be held in Istanbul on November 23 or December 5. Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany agree on Istanbul, but have proposed a date of November 15.
The final date is yet to be fixed.
Ahmadinejad questioned again the mandate of the six powers.
"What is the basis of this group and based on which law it was formed," he asked.
"If it consists of the five UN Security Council members, then what is Germany doing here? We welcome Germany's presence, but then we say that for the reason Germany is in the talks, others should also be in."
Iran has previously said that allies Brazil and Turkey be involved in these talks.
Ahmadinejad also accused the UN atomic watchdog of "giving information" to Iran's arch-foe, the United States.
"Accepting the additional protocol means that all our nuclear activities must be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), which gives information to America," he said.
In February 2006, Iran ceased to apply the additional protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for tougher inspections of nuclear activities of member countries.
On Monday, IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told the UN General Assembly "Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."
Iran must carry out "full implementation" of IAEA and UN Security Council resolutions, he said.
Iran's deputy ambassador to the UN, Eshagh al-Habib, hit back, saying Amano's claim was "incorrect and misleading."
He called the UN Security Council sanction resolutions "illegal."
Iran is under four sets of UN sanctions for refusing to abandon its uranium enrichment programme, the most controversial part of its nuclear activities.

Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water

Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water
Leaks from carbon dioxide injected deep underground to help fight climate change could bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places, according to a study by Duke University scientists. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-leaking-underground-co2-storage-contaminate.html

What Keeps You Up Late At Night? - For Me, Tonight, It is the Unholy Alliance of Natural Gas, Environmentalists, and Renewable Energy Advocates by Rod Adams

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-keeps-you-up-late-at-night-for-me.html

No money, no nukes

Plans to build more nuclear power plants are running up against a hard reality: No one wants to pay for them.

N. Korea Linked to Covert Missile, Nuke Trade By: Bill Gertz | The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/10/n-korea-linked-to-covert-missile-nuke-trade/

A report by the U.N. Security Council made public Wednesday states that North Korea is linked to covert shipments of banned nuclear technology and missiles to Iran, Syria and Burma.

Without Vermont Yankee, ISO NE Predicts Possible Transmission Line Melting

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2010/11/without-vermont-yankee-iso-ne-predicts.html

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Nuclear Energy Development in the 21st Century: Global Scenarios and Regional Trends

http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=251482785&gid=2170900&type=member&item=34614284&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-pub.iaea.org%2FMTCD%2Fpublications%2FPubDetails.asp%3FpubId%3D8572&urlhash=kWUf&goback=.gde_2170900_member_34614284

China to drive energy surge through 2035: IEA

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010111087083
LONDON: China will drive a surge in world energy demand over the next quarter century, as straining supply enhances OPEC’s oil market share and growing coal use undermines efforts to contain global warming, according to a report.
Chinese demand will jump 75 percent, accounting for more than a third of an increase in energy use that will bring global consumption to 16.7 billion metric tons of oil equivalent by 2035, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts in its annual World Energy Outlook. Oil supplies will be pushed near their peak, thwarting government pledges to limit the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius.
In its annual World Energy Outlook released, the Paris-based IEA said emerging nations like China will account for most of the surge in demand and that much will depend on the strength of the economic recovery over the next few years.
The agency - the energy arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a grouping of the world’s richest nations - forecast that global oil demand will rise to 99 million barrels a day by 2035, some 15 million barrels a day higher than last year.
That’s a slightly slower increase than the 105 million barrels a day by 2030 it forecast last year as the world economy continues to slowly get back on its feet, but IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said it was no time for policy makers to be complacent.
“Oil market developments and growth in CO2 emissions are my greatest concern,” IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said. “Demand from emerging markets will be strong. There is a lack of united political will to reduce carbon emissions.”
Global oil demand will increase 18 percent to 99 million barrels a day in 2035, from 84 million a day in 2009, the IEA said. The agency lowered its 2035 estimate for oil use by 6 million barrels a day because of government pledges to curtail carbon emissions under the Copenhagen Accord signed last December.
Oil supply, including production of oils not classified as crude, “comes close” to reaching a peak by 2035, driving prices up to $113 a barrel in 2009 terms, from around $86 a barrel today, according to the agency. Supplies of crude alone will not regain the peak of 70 million barrels a day reached in 2006, as output from ageing fields tapers off, it added.
“This price trajectory is not good news for anyone,” Birol said. “Many oil-importing countries are still in a fragile situation. There are already plans for moving away from oil in the transportation sector in many consuming countries. That would not be good news for oil exporters.”
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will account for 50 percent of the world’s oil supply by 2035 while production from outside the group falters, the IEA said. OPEC currently accounts for about 40 percent of global supply. Consumption of natural gas will increase 44 percent to 4.5 trillion cubic meters in 2035, from 3.1 trillion cubic meters in 2008, according to the agency.
The share of nuclear power in the energy mix will rise to 8 percent in 2035, from 6 percent in 2008, while the proportion of renewable resources will grow to 14 percent from 7 percent, the IEA said.
Still, reliance on fossil fuels means that emissions of carbon dioxide will increase 21 percent to 35 billion tons in 2035 from 29 billion tons in 2008, leading to an increase of 3.5 degrees Celsius in world temperature “in the long term,” the agency said.
The agency’s default set of assumptions, called the “New Policies Scenario,” includes government commitments to tackling climate change, such as the Copenhagen Accord.
The IEA also outlined another case, the “450 Scenario,” which details the measures that would be necessary to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million, and limit the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius.
These measures will require additional spending of $11.6 trillion than under the “New Policies” scenario through 2030, the IEA said. The costs are about $1 trillion more than the agency had estimated last year, to compensate for the shortcomings of existing global climate change policies.
— Agencies __

U.N. Nuclear Chief Sets Sights on Syria By: Jay Solomon | The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703585004575604860347631580.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLENewsIntl

The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog said he is open to demanding intrusive new inspections of alleged Syrian nuclear sites, signaling a potential hardening of the international community's position.

chart of the Day: And The Energy Source Of The Future Is...


	And The Energy Source Of The Future Is... Coal! As made clear by the International Energy Agency in its new World Energy Outlook, coal production is expected to explode, most notably in China. And bear in mind that this is taking into account a scenario whereby policy measures are implemented to curb its production. Read »

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Division remains on storing nuclear waste But experts at competing meetings agree that a site is still needed

While the state Commission on Nuclear Projects huddled at the Clark County Government Center to continue its opposition of the Yucca Mountain Project, a few miles away on the Strip more than 2,000 nuclear industry leaders, scientists and researchers converged for a conference titled "Nuclear Progress!"
Despite their differences, both sides acknowledge that the nation's high-level radioactive waste eventually will need a permanent disposal site.

Where that place is, when it will be ready and in what form the waste will be are some of the questions that remain a couple months after Congress zeroed out funding for the project and President Barack Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission for America's Nuclear Future began charting a new path forward.
"My opinion as a nuclear engineer is that the findings of that commission will not be much different than previous commissions. We know what the options are," said Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, incoming chairwoman of the American Nuclear Society's Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division.
The best option, whether or not it is Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, or some other site in some other state, is deep, geologic disposal, she said.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/division-remains-on-storing-nation-s-high-level-nuclear-waste-106944248.html

China to build another nuclear reactor for Pakistan

Pakistan and China deepened their relationship on Monday when it emerged there were plans for a fifth Chinese-built nuclear reactor. The revelation was timed to coincide with President Barack Obama's visit to India, Islamabad's arch rival.

India, U.S. ink pact on global center for nuclear energy partnership

NEW DELHI (Kyodo) -- India and the United States signed an agreement Monday to cooperate on an Indian initiative to establish a global center for a nuclear energy partnership.
The pact was inked after a one-on-one meeting in New Delhi between U.S. President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
An Indian government statement said India and the United States will cooperate on initiatives to strengthen global nuclear security and jointly address threats of nuclear terrorism.
Speaking at a joint news conference after his meeting with Singh, Obama said the two sides have decided to strengthen cooperation to fight nuclear terrorism.
Obama said the United States and India have also agreed to implement their bilateral civilian nuclear energy agreement.
Singh said India needs investment of $1 trillion to improve the nation's infrastructure and the United States can play a significant role in this project.
In April Singh unveiled an initiative to set up a global center in India on nuclear energy to address issues such as nuclear security, radiation safety and the application of radiation technology to health.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/business/news/20101109p2g00m0bu019000c.html

If Terrorists Explode A Nuclear Bomb, Can The Origin Of The Bomb Makers Be Found?

Photo: The first atomic bomb exploded at a test site in July 1945

Nuclear Debris Could Reveal Clues Of Bomb's Origin -- BBC

Forensic analysis of the debris left after a nuclear explosion could yield crucial evidence about the composition and the origin of the bomb, say scientists.
A US team examined Trinitite, the glassy ground debris from the first-ever nuclear test that the US Army conducted in 1945 in New Mexico.

They used advanced analytical techniques to reveal details about the materials used to construct the bomb.

The study appears in the journal PNAS.

Read more ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11714316

Vermont's Great Green Election Day Victory -- Kick out the Nuclear Plant

Vermont's new governor pledged to shut its leaking nuclear site. And the town closest to that reactor has voted to take it by eminent domain if necessary. READ MORE

By Harvey Wasserman / AlterNet

-http://www.alternet.org/story/148755/vermont%27s_great_green_election_day_victory_--_kick_out_the_nuclear_plant

Biofuels Fallacy: Why Burning Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels Won't Save the Climate The quest to replace black fuels with green fuels is just another resource and land grab by big corporations.

Biofuels Fallacy: Why Burning Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels Won't Save the Climate

The quest to replace black fuels with green fuels is just another resource and land grab by big corporations. READ MORE

Jeff Conant: You and your colleagues at ETC Group are strong advocates of taking what I would call a reasoned approach to the deployment of new technologies; you're best known for having led the charge for a global ban on the infamous Terminator Seed, and you've just had a tremendous victory by winning a global moratorium on geoengineering experiments (see last week's piece on AlterNet). Now, you're releasing a report on another impending technological concern: synthetic biology.

Jim Thomas: The report is called "The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods." It's an exposé and argument against the new "bioeconomy" most OECD countries are now promoting as the next (supposedly "green") wave of industrial production -- switching from fossil fuels to biological material (biomass) as the key feedstock of the economy. As such, it encompasses biofuels, burning biomass for electricity, and using biomass for chemicals, plastics and other materials formerly sourced from petroleum. More at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/148736/biofuels_fallacy%3A_why_burning_plants_instead_of_fossil_fuels_won%27t_save_the_climate

Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study

European plans to promote biofuels will drive farmers to convert 69,000 square km of wild land into fields and plantatons, depriving the poor of food and accelerating climate change, a report warned on Monday.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biofuel-worse-for-climate-than-foss

Nuclear power construction lessons learned relevant to new nuclear build in the U.K.

The most significant lessons identified in the study are as follows:
Follow-on replica stations are cheaper than first-of-a-kind.
A statement of the obvious perhaps but the implications for electricity supply planning, investment and politics are huge. A secure electricity supply will be cheaper to build with less financial risk and uncertainty about completion dates if a firm commitment is made to a fleet of identical stations rather than one at a time.

The design must be mature and licensing issues resolved prior to start of construction.
This was the case for Sizewell B and is the purpose of the Generic Design Assessment for new designs in the UK. It has not been the case in all countries. Permission to start nuclear construction does not always imply that the regulator is satisfied that the design can be licensed for operation.

Establish a highly-qualified team to develop the design, secure the safety case, plan the procurement and build schedule in detail in collaboration with main contractors.
This emphasis on highly-qualified teams and collaboration is essential for large, capital intensive, complex and technologically sophisticated projects. It does not necessarily imply less competition except when specialist skills are in very short supply. A commitment to collaborate and provide a high quality team for the duration of the project must be a requirement of the competitive process with contract and procurement strategies to achieve this.

Ensure that sub contractors are of high quality and experienced in nuclear construction or are taught the necessary special skills and requirements for quality, traceability and documentation.
This requires investment by industry and educational institutions and the inspiration of students to commit to an intellectually challenging and specialized career. This requires an unequivocal commitment and encouragement from government.

Establish and maintain good communications with the community local to the site.
A nuclear station will be part of the community for a century. It is important that the local community is kept informed and involved, that concerns and fears are addressed and the station is perceived as bringing benefits as well as being in the ‘national interest’.

The report looked at the lessons learned from Sizewell B, a PWR completed in 1995; the installation of waste processing facilities at Sellafield; Olkiluoto 3, the EPR plant under construction in Finland; Flamanville 3, the EPR plant under construction in France; Taishan units 1 & 2 the EPR plants under construction in China; and Sanmen and Haiyang, the AP1000 plants under construction in China.

Looking at Legislation, Regulation and Planning; Design, Planning and Procurement; Construction; Commissioning and Operation; and Provision of Skills and Knowledge Management, the review of these projects found that the most obvious lessons learned were:

1. Follow-on replica stations are cheaper than first-of-a-kind.
2. The design must be mature and licensing issues resolved prior to start of construction.
3. Establish a highly-qualified team to develop the design, secure the safety case, plan the procurement and build schedule in detail in collaboration with main contractors.
4. Ensure that sub contractors are of high quality and experienced in nuclear construction or are taught the necessary special skills and requirements for quality, traceability and documentation.
5. Establish and maintain good communications with the community local to the site.
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/1669680228/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/reactors/2010/11/Lessons-learned-relevant-new-nuclear-build-in-UK.html

The debate on nuclear fuel storage

By John T. Herron, President, CEO and Chief Nuclear Officer, Entergy Nuclear

I recently had the opportunity to address the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission. The Transportation and Storage Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission, under the authority of the Department of Energy, was established to answer the question, “Should the U.S. change the way in which it is storing used nuclear fuel and high level waste while one or more final disposal locations are established?” Our industry has some challenges to overcome and one of those at the top of my list is addressing the issue of long-term nuclear fuel and waste storage.

My company and the nuclear energy industry are concerned about these major issues:

1. The United States should change the way in which it is storing used nuclear fuel and high-level waste. One or more final disposal locations need to be established. The status quo is not acceptable. The storage facilities for nuclear spent fuel and waste should be run by either federal corporations or a private entity.

2. The Department of Energy and the Department of Justice need to meet their obligations for fuel storage and make the utilities and their customers whole according to current laws and contracts. American taxpayers have contributed more than $34 billion into a waste fund. Ongoing lawsuits between the utilities and the government regarding defaulting on obligations and use of funds must be addressed.

3. Decommissioned nuclear power sites should be returned to productive use or natural sites and not continue to house nuclear fuel. More at:http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/5596741245/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/waste-and-decommissioning/2010/11/The-debate-on-nuclear-fuel-storage.html

Nuclear Executive Roundtable

As the United States continues to look for clean, reliable energy to cut emissions while providing enough power for the growing country, the nuclear power industry is making plans to expand. On Feb. 16, President Obama awarded the first loan guarantee for a nuclear plant under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The award of $8.3 billion for two additional reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia is conditional until the plant receives a combined construction and operating license from the NRC, which is expected in 2011.

Southern Co. is not the only energy provider looking to build the first nuclear reactors in the U.S. Along with modular design and the financial battle of building new nuclear, nuclear power has been grabbing headlines across the globe.

In a series of interviews, Power Engineering magazine Associate Editor Brian Wheeler moderated this year’s Nuclear Power Executive Roundtable.

Participants included John Herron, president, CEO & chief nuclear officer of Entergy Nuclear; Mark Marano, Areva senior vice president of U.S. new build operations; Danny Roderick, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's senior vice president for new plant projects; Christofer Mowry, president & CEO, B&W Modular Nuclear Energy, LLC; and Deva Chari, Westinghouse senior vice president of Nuclear Power Plants.

There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of a nuclear renaissance globally. What is the outlook for new nuclear projects over the next couple of years, especially given the global recession? More at:http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/4012739868/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/reactors/2010/10/nuclear-roundtable.html

AES plans $15bn spending spree in India to raise power generation capacity

AES, the US utility with operations in 29 countries, plans to spend as much as $15bn to increase capacity in India and get 10 per cent of its revenue from the South Asian nation in five years.

“A big part of that would be financed by banks,” Chief Executive Officer Paul Hanrahan said in an interview in New Delhi, reported Bloomberg. “The equity piece would be about $4bn to $5bn.”

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government plans to tap private investments as it plans to double infrastructure spending in India to $1 trn in the five years ending 2017. Asia’s second-biggest energy consumer is adding electricity- generation capacity to reduce blackouts and fuel an economy that grew at the fastest pace in more than two years in the three months ended 30 June. More at:

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/2325682286/articles/powergenworldwide/coal-generation/new-projects/2010/11/aes-plans__15bn_spending.html

Monday, November 8, 2010

U.S. arms deal raises concerns in Mideast

The wholesale upgrading of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia and its partners in the Persian Gulf is seen in some quarters as a risky enterprise that will only convince the Iranians they need nuclear weapons to counter such a buildup of conventional forces ranged against them.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UPI) Nov 8, 2010 The U.S. administration's plan to sell advanced weaponry worth at least $122 billion to its allies in the Persian Gulf to counter Iran is causing unease in the Middle East. There are fears that the mega-deal, the biggest arms sale in U.S. history if Congress approves, carries serious risks it will inflame regional rivalries while it provides huge profits for the U.S. defense industry.
The potential for conflict in an inherently unstable region prone to war and insurgency is immense. Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and the Levant are all powder kegs. Israel feels increasingly squeezed by missile-armed forces that ring it and may resort to pre-emptive strikes.
The massive U.S. deal doesn't cover Iraq, where the Americans are still rebuilding the country's postwar military and security forces.
But that, too, causes concern. Saddam Hussein launched two wars against his neighbors. He invaded Iran in September 1980, triggering a grueling war of attrition that ended in August 1988. Two years later he invaded Kuwait, which ended in a crushing defeat for Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition.
Iraq's neighbors, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia, have no wish to see the new Iraq become a military power.
Right now, that prospect is less threatening than the reality of the present, with Iraq once again sliding into chaos and anarchy that could spill over into the Persian Gulf as the Saudis and other Sunni states seek to prevent the Iranians gaining a foothold in the heart of the Arab world.
The Americans have armed the gulf states for decades but this time they're providing them with offensive systems.

Nuclear expansion in China

Nuclear expansion in China
As the world's most populous country and fastest growing major economy, it's no surprise that China needs energy - lots of energy. Its thirst for oil has been a major driver for the dramatic increase in crude prices since 2004, and its heavy reliance on coal has created severe pollution problems and made China the world's largest emitter of CO2. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-nuclear-expansion-china.html

Nuclear Power in China

Mainland China has 12 nuclear power reactors in operation, 24 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

Most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil fuels (80% from coal, 2% from oil, 1% from gas in 2006) and hydropower (15%). Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP.¹ In 2009 power shortages were most acute in central provinces, particularly Hubei, and in December the Central China Grid Co. posted a peak load of 94.6 GW.
Domestic electricity production in 2009 was 3643 billion kWh, 6.0% higher than the 3,450 billion kWh in 2008, which was 5.8% more than in 2007 (3,260 billion kWh) and it is expected to rise to 3,810 billion kWh in 2010. Installed capacity had grown by the end of 2009 to 874 GWe, up 10.2% on the previous year's 793 GWe, which was 11% above the previous year's 713 GWe.² Capacity growth is expected to slow, reaching about 1600 GWe in 2020. At the end of 2007, there was reported to be 145 GWe of hydro capacity, 554 GWe fossil fuel, 9 GWe nuclear and 4 GWe wind, total 713 GWe. In 2008, the country added 20.1 GWe of hydro capacity, 65.8 GWe coal-fired capacity, and 4.7 GWe wind.
These capacity increase figures are all the more remarkable considering the forced retirement of small inefficient coal-fired plants: 26 GWe of these was closed in 2009, making 60 GWe closed since 2006, cutting annual coal consumption by 69 million tonnes and annual carbon dioxide emissions by 139 Mt.
The grid system run by the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) is sophisticated and rapidly growing, utilising ultra high voltage (1000 kV AC and 800 kV DC) transmission. By 2020, the capacity of the UHV network is expected to be some 300 GW, which will function as the backbone of the whole system, having 400 GWe of clean energy sources connected, of which hydropower will account for 78 GW, and wind power from the north a further significant portion (wind capacity by 2020 is planned to be 100 GWe). Also by 2020, operational transmission losses are expected to be 5.7%, down from 6.6% in 2010. At the end of 2009, China had budgeted to spend $600 billion upgrading its grid.
Among the main listed generators, Huaneng Power produced 203.5 billion kWh from its domestic plants in 2009, 10.2% up on 2008. Datang Power produced 141.9 billion kWh, 12% up on 2008. Huadian Power produced 107.5 billion kWh, 6.75% above 2008. CPI Development produced 43.9 billion kWh, 2.0% above 2008 level.
While coal is the main energy source, most reserves are in the north or northwest and present an enormous logistic problem – nearly half the country's rail capacity is used in transporting coal. Because of the heavy reliance on old coal-fired plant, electricity generation accounts for much of the country's air pollution, which is a strong reason to increase nuclear share. China recently overtook the USA as the world's largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The US Energy Information Administration predicts that China's share in global coal-related emissions will grow by 2.7% per year, from 4.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 9.3 billion tonnes in 2030, some 52% of the projected world total. Total carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow by 2.8% per year from 6.2 billion tonnes in 2006 to 11.7 billion tonnes in 2030 (or 28% of world total). In comparison, total US carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow by 0.3% per year, from 5.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 7.7 billion tonnes in 2030.³
Nuclear power has an important role, especially in the coastal areas remote from the coalfields and where the economy is developing rapidly. Generally, nuclear plants can be built close to centres of demand, whereas suitable wind and hydro sites are remote from demand. Moves to build nuclear power commenced in 1970 and the industry has now moved to a rapid development phase. Technology has been drawn from France, Canada and Russia, with local development based largely on the French element. The latest technology acquisition has been from the USA (via Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba) and France. The Westinghouse AP1000 is the main basis of technology development in the immediate future.
Government targets for nuclear power have been increasing. As of June 2010, official installed nuclear capacity targets are understood to be 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030 and 400 GWe by 2050.
In September 2010, the China Daily reported that China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) alone plans to invest CNY 800 billion ($120 billion) into nuclear energy projects by 2020. Total investment in nuclear power plants, in which CNNC will hold controlling stakes, will reach CNY 500 billion ($75 billion) by 2015, according to CNNC. In order to fund the company's expansion target, CNNC plans to list its subsidiary, CNNC Nuclear Power Co Ltd in 2011, to attract strategic investors.

Nuclear power reactors in mainland China

Much more at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html