Obama's Climate Action Plan

Today (June 25) President Obama will give a speech on his vision for a national climate policy, which is of interest to us involved with nuclear energy in that it's also going to impact energy policy. 

Overnight, the speech leaked out.  The Nuclear Energy Institute has made cuts of the speech that include reference to nuclear energy.  See NEI's post on NEI Nuclear Notes here. 

NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel has made a statement about the Obama policy; see it here.

The White House has released a brief Fact Sheet on the overall plan.  See it here.

There is also available from the White House a full 21 page report.  See the .pdf file here.

In this full report we find the statement - "Going forward, we will expand these efforts to promote nuclear energy generation consistent with maximizing safety and nonproliferation goals. " 

The American Nuclear Society (of which I'm a member, and also have a seat on the ANS Communications Committee) has a position statement on nuclear energy, entitled "Nuclear Power: The Leading Strategy for Reducing Carbon Emissions."  Click here to see it.

For further information..

• ANS Position on Need for Near Term Deployment of Nuclear Power

• The speech will mention SMR or Small Modular Reactors; here is the ANS Position on these.

Small Modular Reactors can be used to repower existing fossil fired facilities.  Small sized (but not modular) reactors were in fact used in this capacity before; the technique is proven, and not on a small scale.  See an extensive article about this phenomenon here.

More details later.

----------

1:57 PM  Edison Electric Institute Statement.

2:25 PM  Heritage Foundation briefs on nuclear energy and energy policy.

10:30 AM 6/26  Politico - Ten Takeaways on Obama's Climate Speech (via Glenn Williams)

----------

Perspective -  OBAMA'S CLIMATE / ENERGY / POLITICAL LEVERAGE SPEECH

The Nuclear Agenda

President Obama's speech only mentioned nuclear energy briefly, in passing - a great disappointment to those of us solidly behind nuclear energy who were listening intently.  What appears in the printed material is really not much better than what's appeared before.  We can expect further push on Small Modular Reactors, the plan says; but is that really promising any more than continuance of the first round of DOE SMR funding?  Is there any promise of an increase?  No, and no.  So the words are just a continuation of previous policy.  But the President did say some things that might put off a number of solidly pro-nuclear folks that had nothing at all to do with nuclear energy.

The Flat Earth Society?

During his speech, President Obama referred to those who deny or question in some way the effect of man on climate change as "flat earthers."  It's for that reason that I include the following link.  Those who do not believe that there is any large, solid core of people who doubt anthropogenically driven climate change need to read the following article very carefully.

Obama's Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience

The people for whom the above article was written aren't going to buy into any plans based entirely on climate change.  However, no one can deny the importance of maintaining the United States as a technological leader -- and no one can deny the sound of opportunity knocking at the door.

That "opportunity" is the strong desire for many nations overseas to acquire nuclear power plants.  Some are well underway, like the United Arab Emirates; others, like Kenya, are only just starting.  Those just starting -- or, in some cases, others looking to restart dead or stalled programs -- are potential sales locations for American built technologies.  We need to get moving on international agreements, and sell nuclear plants anywhere we can show there's a suitable location, a stable government, a solid regulator, and trained and capable operating staff.

That's the part of the President's plan they'll buy in with.  Calling them names isn't helpful; finding out what matters to them, and what might convince them as a result, is helpful. 

I'll be keeping my eyes open for futher good perspectives on the Obama speech, and will post them here.

----------

10:50 AM 6/26   Andrea Jennetta / Fuel Cycle Week:  Nuclear Energy, not Unreliables, is the Solution to Climate Change

----------

11:58 AM 6/28  Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation has written an analytical piece entitled "The President's Pro-Nuclear Rhetoric vs. his Anti-Nuclear Policies."  It's realistic, sobering, and worth a read at least once.  Click here to see it. 

I will continue to add analytical pieces to this blog post as I find relevant and realistic examples.

Read More

Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers 162

Atomic Power Review is proud to host another in a long line of pro-nuclear advocacy vehicles that we call the "Carnival."  This feature rotates among pro-nuclear blogs each week, and presents the top stories of that week. 

We've just come off a grand American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, which I attended and reported on under contract to the American Nuclear Society.  The topical meetings were great, and of course as with any such meeting the networking before and after the sessions were invaluable.  Some of the links you'll see below relate to material delivered at the meeting.

But first... What is this?

You can click the photo to enlarge it.  No hints this week -- and yes, this photo was very deliberately chosen to appear in this feature at this juncture.. in fact, I thought I'd picked the photo prior to the weekend but I changed photos at the last minute.  You'll find out why later on.  Now, the Carnival!

----------

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

Japan has new nuclear safety guidelines:  The Nuclear Regulation Authority said it would start accepting applications on July 8 from power companies seeking to restart their reactors. Seven companies have said they will apply to restart a total of 13 reactors across Japan. Japan has passed new safety guidelines.

----------

Atomic Insights - Rod Adams

Defy Joe Romm's advice and watch Pandora's Promise:  Joe Romm, the lead thinker at Climate Progress, has once again exposed the fact that he is not terribly serious about fighting climate change. In fact, he is so casual about the effort that he wants everyone to dismiss nuclear energy out of hand as being too expensive to matter, without even thinking about trying to solve the often solvable issue of cost. He does not want to deal with the discussion that might happen if people watch Pandora's Promise and begin to consider nuclear as an effective tool in an important struggle.

----------

Yes Vermont Yankee - Meredith Angwin

Pandora's Promise: Nationwide Now    In this post, Meredith Angwin compares reactions to the movie Pandora's Promise, particularly reactions by anti-nuclear activists. One nuclear opponent wrote: "For me, this film’s strength was not that it changed my mind, which it did not, but that it expanded it." Another supposed environmentalist used the terms "hoax" and "liar" about the film. In other words, some people have open eyes. Other people keep their eyes shut, in order to defend themselves from inconvenient truths.

----------


Hiroshima Syndrome - Leslie Corrice

The Hiroshima Syndrome covers two topics of import this week.  First, in "Japan's Red Cross violates its moral imperative with too-low limits," we find that the Japan Red Cross Society (JRCS) has set a maximum radiation exposure limit of one millisievert per year for emergency response workers.  The primary mission of these workers is saving the lives of survivable victims.  To the contrary, it seems the JRCS is more concerned about avoidance of negligible radiation exposures than saving people's lives.  Next, in "A New Fukushima Scare About Strontium-90," this past Wednesday Tokyo Electric Power Company said Strontium-90 was found in a groundwater sampling well near Fukushima Daiichi.  The announcement has set off a tsunami of alarming press articles based on questionable evidence.  Japan's press seems dedicated to keeping its readers in a state of fear.

----------

ANS Nuclear Cafe - submitted by Paul Bowersox

The American Nuclear Society's Annual Meeting was held this past week in Atlanta, Georgia.  The technical sessions there provided a great deal of timely and relevant information about nuclear energy and research; two were covered in some detail on the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog by Will Davis.  First, a panel discussed the risks and challenges involved with Building New Nuclear Plants.  Second, another expert panel discussed Supply Chain and Procurement Issues in Nuclear Energy.  Both presentations carried important implications for the future of nuclear energy in this country, in both the areas of new construction and support for plants already operating.

Westinghouse has released a brand new television commercial entitled "We Are Nuclear Energy."  This was debuted at the ANS Annual Meeting to round applause.  See this link for the ANS Nuclear Cafe article on it.

----------

We now get to the "What is this" feature that Atomic Power Review always has when it hosts the Carnival. 

The illustration you saw earlier shows an artist's conception of the NEP-1 and NEP-2 units which were to have been built at the site of what had been the Charlestown Naval Air Station, Rhode Island.  These units were ordered by New England Power (and other utilities) in May, 1974.  In September, 1976, a construction permit was applied for.  Some statistics (partly from the back of the post card whose front provided the illustration) are as follows:

Proposed Site - 604 acres
Total Estimated Cost - Over $1.5 billion
Scheduled Completion Dates - Unit 1, 1982; Unit 2, 1983.
Both units Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors.  (Rated 1194 MWe each.)
Architect-Engineer:  United Engineers & Constructors.

The project would have employed a peak construction force of over 2000 workers, and kept an operating and maintenance force of over 200 workers - greatly boosting the local economy, and providing GHG-free electricity 24 hours a day, rain or shine.

The project was cancelled in 1979, officially 0% complete.  According to Energy Information Administration documents, the official reason was "reversal of economic advantage," with the footnote "it was determined that the implementation of conservation and load management programs, and the conversion to coal of existing units, could satisfy current and projected demand." 

"Conversion to coal" is particularly stunning right now, immediately after the release of the movie Pandora's Promise, in which a number of former anti-nuclear activists detail their conversion to being pro-nuclear.  How strange is it that prevention of a nuclear plant's construction was in part made possible by converting other units to coal. 

The fact about this project's abandonment though is that a major deciding pressure was a bevy of lawsuits brought against the project by local "environmentalist" activists.  Certainly, the downward trend in projected power requirements played a role - but so did obstruction by intervenors, better and more accurately named as "opponents."

This last described fact is appalling in light of converting plants to coal at the time.  These lawsuits are no secret; look them up yourselves.

There was already a clearly established trend of nuclear plant delay and cancellation underway by the time the NEP units were cancelled in 1979.  Below is a graph from a 1981 US DOE document entitled "Nuclear Power Program Information and Data."

Click the illustration to enlarge it.  It's clear that the trend to having a net negative quantity if one only considers plants ordered annually and plants cancelled annually started in fact shortly after the NEP plants were ordered.  What's also clear is that many of the stated reasons in EIA documents that make economic assessments don't take into consideration the opposition from anti-nuclear forces back at that time.  That opposition's primary effect was delayed construction, meaning that interest drained the coffers of those on the hook for it.

A document that's been available on this site for some time is an AEC internally written history of the early years of the anti-nuclear movement up to mid-1973.  It's essential reading for those who have seen Pandora's Promise and want a better view of what was really going on.  It's quite eye opening.  The document can be found by clicking this link; however, it's also available in the right side bar.  See "Public Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy - WASH-1250." 

On Tuesday, President Obama is now known to be making a speech about energy policy and climate change.  The whitehouse.gov video hints that he'll mention new biofuels, and new technologies.  One wonders if the hiring of a former Union of Concerned Scientists executive at a high level in the Department of Energy isn't part of a broader administration signal that nuclear energy will be left out.  Indeed, it's instructive today (considering environmental panic of the moment) to look back at the Charlestown RI "NEP" project -- and see that part of the justification for cancelling it was "conservation."  That's right -- that means forcing people to make do with less, instead of generating more power cleanly.

We might be coming to a serious junction in this country in terms of energy policy.  It's important to see that nuclear energy must play a role in our energy future - it provides relatively fixed-cost, reliable energy around the clock with no exhaust.  No GHG; no soot.  Further, manufacturers of SMR (Small Modular Reactor) plants are planning to replace coal fired units nearer to cities than large nuclear plants can be built with small, underground, inherently safe nuclear units that bring lowered purchasing and operating cost along with 24/7 power capability to the table.  These units will even be able to load follow -- allowing for more renewables to be used on the same grid. 

Let's select the direction we want to go, this time around -- and get there.  Let's not allow under-construction and planned nuclear stations to get waylaid.  Instead, let's embrace the reasons why we need nuclear energy (safe, efficient, round the clock power) and the reasons we might want to avoid fossil fuel (greenhouse gas emissions) and have the courage to take a path and plow toward a goal.  And, let's not leave a trail of incomplete gravestones to our ideals this time around.  I've seen enough of the illustrations such as I've showed you today -- nuclear plants planned and ordered but never built.

2:00 PM Eastern 6/23/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

SCE notifies NRC that San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is permanently shut down

Press release from Southern California Edison, courtesy Maureen Brown, follows.

----------

Media Contact: Media Relations, (626) 302-2255

SCE Formally Notifies NRC of San Onofre Nuclear Plant’s Permanent Shutdown

ROSEMEAD, Calif., June 13, 2013 — Southern California Edison (SCE) on Wednesday formally notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it has permanently ceased operation of San Onofre nuclear plant Units 2 and 3, effective June 7.

The notification, called a Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations, is the formal administrative step following SCE’s announcement last week that the company will retire Units 2 and 3.

“Safety will remain our top priority as we transition to the decommissioning process,” said Pete Dietrich, SCE senior vice president and chief nuclear officer. “We take very seriously our obligation to protect the health and safety of the public and our employees as we take the regulatory and planning steps to decommission San Onofre.”

Dietrich said the NRC will continue to provide regulatory oversight of San Onofre. He noted that San Onofre management will draw upon the expertise of staff who managed the decommissioning of Unit 1, which ceased operation in 1992. Decommissioning is a detailed process that will take many years. The process requirements are outlined in federal regulations.

San Onofre Unit 2 was taken out of service Jan. 9, 2012, for a planned outage and Unit 3 was safely taken offline Jan. 31, 2012, after station operators detected a leak in a steam generator tube.

More information is available at www.edison.com/SONGSupdate and at www.SONGScommunity.com. San Onofre is jointly owned by SCE (78.21 percent), San Diego Gas & Electric (20 percent) and the city of Riverside (1.79 percent). Follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/SCE) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/SCE).

About Southern California Edison

An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

###

3:20 PM Eastern 6/13/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

FLASH: SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION TO BE RETIRED

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION to be retired in wake of steam generator tube damage

Two units affected by unparalleled effects in RSG (Replacement Steam Generator) units supplied by Mitsubishi with design parameters specified by SCE (Southern California Edison - Edison International) have led to long term problems, intervenor action, full NRC investigation, Congressional intervention and massive study of the problem

SCE had both submitted plans to NRC to restart Unit 2 with new lower power limit, and had also in parallel requested a license amendment for a new 100% power rating equivalent to the old 70% power rating to meet the letter of NRC rule

Links:

Yahoo Finance (via Glenn Williams)

SCE Press Release:

Southern California Edison Announces Plans to Retire San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Company Will Continue Its Work with State Agencies on Electric Grid Reliability

ROSEMEAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Southern California Edison (SCE) has decided to permanently retire Units 2 and 3 of its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

“this is an extraordinary team of men and women. We will treat them fairly.”

“SONGS has served this region for over 40 years,” said Ted Craver, Chairman and CEO of Edison International, parent company of SCE, “but we have concluded that the continuing uncertainty about when or if SONGS might return to service was not good for our customers, our investors, or the need to plan for our region’s long-term electricity needs.”

Both SONGS units have been shut down safely since January 2012. Unit 2 was taken out of service January 9, 2012, for a planned routine outage. Unit 3 was safely taken offline January 31, 2012, after station operators detected a small leak in a tube inside a steam generator manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). Two steam generators manufactured by MHI were installed in Unit 2 in 2009 and two more were installed in Unit 3 in 2010, one of which developed the leak.

In connection with the decision, SCE estimates that it will record a charge in the second quarter of between $450 million and $650 million before taxes ($300 million - $425 million after tax), in accordance with accounting requirements.

After months of analysis and tests, SCE submitted a restart plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in October 2012. SCE proposed to safely restart Unit 2 at a reduced power level (70 %) for an initial period of approximately five months. That plan was based on work done by engineering groups from three independent firms with expertise in steam generator design and manufacturing.

The NRC has been reviewing SCE’s plans for restart of Unit 2 for the last eight months, during which several public meetings have been held. A recent ruling by an adjudicatory arm of the NRC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, creates further uncertainty regarding when a final decision might be made on restarting Unit 2. Additional administrative processes and appeals could result in delay of more than a year. During this period, the costs of maintaining SONGS in a state of readiness to restart and the costs to replace the power SONGS previously provided would continue. Moreover, it is uneconomic for SCE and its customers to bear the long-term repair costs for returning SONGS to full power operation without restart of Unit 2. SCE has concluded that efforts are better focused on planning for the replacement generation and transmission resources which will be required for grid reliability.

“Looking ahead,” said Ron Litzinger, SCE’s President, “we think that our decision to retire the units will eliminate uncertainty and facilitate orderly planning for California’s energy future.”

Litzinger noted that the company has worked with the California Independent System Operator, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission in planning for Southern California’s energy needs and will continue to do so.

“The company is already well into a summer reliability program and has completed numerous transmission upgrades in addition to those completed last year,” Litzinger said. “Thanks to consumer conservation, energy efficiency programs and a moderate summer, the region was able to get through last summer without electricity shortages. We hope for the same positive result again this year,” Litzinger added, “although generation outages, soaring temperatures or wildfires impacting transmission lines would test the system.”

In connection with the retirement of Units 2 and 3, San Onofre anticipates reducing staff over the next year from approximately 1,500 to approximately 400 employees, subject to applicable regulatory approvals. The majority of such reductions are expected to occur in 2013.

“This situation is very unfortunate,” said Pete Dietrich, SCE’s Chief Nuclear Officer, noting that “this is an extraordinary team of men and women. We will treat them fairly.” SCE will work to ensure a fair process for this transition, and will work with the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW) on transition plans for the employees they represent.

SCE also recognizes its continuing safety responsibilities as it moves toward decommissioning of the units. SCE’s top priority will be to ensure a safe, orderly, and compliant retirement of these units. Full retirement of the units prior to decommissioning will take some years in accordance with customary practices. Actual decommissioning will take many years until completion. Such activities will remain subject to the continued oversight of the NRC.

SCE intends to pursue recovery of damages from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the supplier of the replacement steam generators, as well as recovery of amounts under applicable insurance policies.

For updates, please visit www.SONGScommunity.com, or follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SCE_SONGS and on www.facebook.com/SCE.

San Onofre is jointly owned by SCE (78.21 percent), San Diego Gas & Electric (20 percent) and the city of Riverside (1.79 percent).

About Southern California Edison

An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of nearly 14 million via 4.9 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

 

----------

 

We'll print more details as they're made available.  Watch @atomicnews on Twitter for updates throughout the day.

 

9:12 AM Eastern June 7, 2013

ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Carnival of Nuclear Energy 158

Atomic Power Review is proud to present the 158th Carnival of Nuclear Energy.  This rotating feature has appeared over the last three years at the most popular English-language, pro-nuclear blogs in order to showcase top news items of each week.

The standard procedure at APR for the Carnival is a guessing game -- I present an illustration from my archives, and ask you to guess what it is.  Here's this Carnival's photo ....   "What is this?"

Since I have the feeling that this illustration will at least in part be fairly obvious to some of the more experienced readers, there's no hint this week.  The answer - and more - after the Carnival entries.

----------

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus

Nuclear Engineers:  Unusual Career Options

Gail Marcus takes on a lighter subject than usual this week at Nuke Power Talk, profiling one Ph.D. nuclear engineer who has found his fame and fortune as a country western musician.

 

----------

 

 ANS Nuclear Cafe - submitted by Paul Bowersox

 

Tsuruga Built Over Active Fault

 

This week, the Japanese nuclear regulator (NRA) determined that the Tsuruga Unit 2 reactor building was in fact built over an active fault, by way of adopting as official the report of an expert panel convened on the subject.  Will Davis covers the news for ANS on this still-developing story.

 

----------

 

The Hiroshima Syndrome - Leslie Corrice

 

Fukushima's Petrarch?

 

In April 2011, photographer Tomoki Imai scaled to the top of Mount Tekura, some 2,000 feet above and 30 kilometers from F. Daiichi. Initially frightened by Press coverage of the nuclear accident, he soon relaxed because all he saw was a beautiful spring landscape, "I realized how my view of Fukushima was being distorted by all the TV images and the information we were being bombarded with at the time." Imai's personal experience on Mount Tekura brings to mind Petrarch's catharsis on Mount Ventoux in the 14th century.

 

----------

 

Canadian Energy Issues - Steve Aplin

 

Cooking with gas in Ontario: why living electrically is better

 

Steve Aplin has fond memories of his grandmother cooking on her beloved natural gas cooking range. But today he wouldn’t be caught dead cooking with natural gas. That’s because the stuff is too pollution-heavy compared with clean, mostly nuclear Ontario electricity.

 

----------

 

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

 

European Union fears being left behind

 

EU leaders, desperate to give economic growth a boost, are talking about targeting energy policy. They are concerned a US-led revolution in shale oil and gas development will reshape the global economy and leave Europe far behind.

 

Japanese Nuclear Restarts - Predictions

 

Industry minister Toshimitsu Motegi said that some of the country’s idled nuclear reactors might resume operations this autumn at the earliest after undergoing a new safety assessment process.

Areva expects Japan over the next few year to restart two-thirds of its atomic plants that were idled after the 2011 Fukushima accident. Half a dozen reactors may restart by the end of this year in addition to the two that resumed operations in 2012.

 

Tesla Superconductors and Fusion Power

 

A new generation of 10 tesla superconductors could make Tokamak style nuclear fusion reactors work. It could make them affordable, smaller, maintainable and remove the plasma problems. The development time could be greatly reduced from 50 years to 10 to 20 years. A new design would also switch to FLIBE molten salt for lower costs.

 

Fusion Energy Summary

Nuclear fusion is one of the main topics at Nextbigfuture. I have summarized the state of nuclear fusion research before. A notable summary was made three years ago in mid-2010. I believed at the time that there could be multiple successful nuclear fusion project vying for commercial markets by 2018. Progress appears to be going a bit more slowly than previously hoped, but there are several possible projects (General Fusion, John Slough small space propulsion nuclear fusion system, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics - if they work out metal contamination and other issues and scale power) that could demonstrate net energy gain in the next couple of years.

 

----------

 

Yes Vermont Yankee - Meredith Angwin

 

A Court Case with a Deadline:  Black Start Diesels

 

When the New England system operator decided that the Vernon Dam was no longer a "Black Start" facility, the NRC required Vermont Yankee to get a new emergency diesel generator. (Vermont Yankee has a direct link to Vernon Dam, and had counted it among its emergency backups.) However, Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) allowed anti-nuclear groups to "intervene" in the matter of buying a diesel, and the PSB also delayed hearings about the diesel for many months. Since Vermont Yankee faces an NRC deadline for the diesel installation, the plant sued the state for interfering with nuclear safety. There are some indications that the PSB may rule in favor of the diesel before the June 4 court date. If they do not, Vermont Yankee will be back in federal court early next month, trying to ensure that it can meet NRC requirements without state interference. (Blog post has many links to court documents on this case.)

 

----------

Atomic Power Review Note:  Regarding the Yes Vermont Yankee post linked and described above...  Just how many times in this post-Fukushima world would one EVER expect to find any group, anywhere, that could possibly justify campaigning AGAINST adding a back up diesel generator at a nuclear plant site?

----------

Things Worse Than Nuclear Power ... "by a couple of M.I.T. engineers!"

Ten Cool Things About Nuclear Waste

This provocatively-titled post will get readers thinking about radioactive waste -- and perhaps most specifically spent nuclear fuel -- in a whole new light.  What if we thought of it as a resource, instead of something to be submerged, then contained, then buried?  And how safe is it when we follow the normal (non-recycling) disposal procedure, anyway?

----------

That's it for this week's lineup of attractions at the Carnival.  All that's left is to tell you what that illustration you saw is!

The illustration is from an unclassified booklet titled "Army Nuclear Power Program," published for the Associate Engineer Officers Course by The Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia in April 1958.  Illustrated is the original conception for the field deployment / site construction of the ALPR or Argonne Low Power Reactor design as a part of the DEW (Defense Early Warning) system of radar stations monitoring potential Soviet overflight of the North Pole, en route to attack on the United States with nuclear weapons.

The ALPR prototype was under construction as the booklet went to press.  The descriptive text for the illustration is as follows:

"Argonne Low Power Reactor.  To meet the requirement for a small plant for use at smaller Arctic installations such as DEW-line stations, the Argonne Low Power Reactor is now under development by the AEC.  A boiling water reactor along with the turbine generator and air-cooled condenser are housed in a 38-foot diameter cylinder which is adjacent to the operational area and living quarters as shown in Figure 3.  Construction of the prototype at the National Reactor Testing Station, Arco, Idaho is about 60% complete and is scheduled for completion late this spring."

As most will already know, ALPR was completed and operated, and was later redesignated as the SL-1 plant.  Operation of the plant was taken over by Combustion Engineering and the plant was used for the training of not only Army but other operators (including some who would operate the nuclear plant on board N. S. Savannah.) 

The illustration depicts, at the left, the plant as described.  Visible in addition to the reactor lower center of the building are the turbine-generator at operating floor level (which in ALPR was supplied by Worthington Corporation), the air cooled condenser space above the operating floor, electrical distribution panels to the left side of the operating floor, and even the right-angle-drive Control Rod Drive Mechanisms (supplied by ALCO Products, who was trying at that time to develop such devices as essentially standard for small reactors.)  The domed structure at center contains the radar; the semi-tubular and sealed / weatherproofed structure running along the site, connecting the reactor building, radar, and of course containing crew quarters, living arrangements and necessities, and operating spaces is of particular interest - no doubt tailored to the extremely hostile environment.

The booklet contains illustrations of other projects, including the following interesting concept.

From the booklet:  "Gas Cooled Reactor for Trailer Mounted Plant.  A gas-cooled reactor for mobile plants employing closed-cycle gas turbines is now under development.  The AEC has contracted for the design, construction, and operation of a gas-cooled reactor experiment at Arco, Idaho.  Concurrent research and development is being conducted by the Corps of Engineers on a closed-cycle gas-turbine test facility under construction at the Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories.  These experiments will furnish engineering data leading to the design of a prototype plant having a capacity of several hundred KW and capable of being transported on a 25-ton trailer similar to the one shown in Figure 4."

Other concepts described in the booklet include some that were built --- the section on "Barge Mounted Plants" did carry out as the nuclear plant - barge STURGIS --- while others, such as the "Land Train" for logistic supply using many vehicles connected by cables to a mobile nuclear plant did not reach anything like prototype stage.

----------

There is indeed a reason I've picked this booklet, and these smaller reactor concepts, for this week's Carnival.  In the coming days, I'll be attending the Platts Small Modular Reactors Conference in Washington, D. C. on behalf of Fuel Cycle Week.  The plants you see depicted here on this page were among the earliest that used concepts similar to those being pushed for the new SMR plants... these being deployment for other-than-base load commercial opportunities, truck-transportable size, and use much nearer to populated centers.... or in some cases, use exceedingly far away from ANY populated center.  It's fascinating to see the distant ancestors of the present SMR concepts, and realize that what's really changed is the technology and commitment to safety, instead of the notions for possible commercial (or military) use for the plants as-built.

Thanks for reading this week's Carnival!  I hope you've enjoyed it.

7:00 PM Eastern 5/26/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Kewaunee Shuts Down for Last Time

Below is today's press release from Dominion on the economically-motivated shutdown of Kewaunee Generating Station.

----------

Dominion News

Dominion Shuts Down Kewaunee Power Station Permanently

May 7, 2013

 

CARLTON, Wis., May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Dominion (NYSE: D) today shut down its 556-megawatt Kewaunee Power Station permanently, ending almost 40 years of nuclear-generated electricity at the station located about 35 miles southeast of Green Bay on Lake Michigan.

Dominion announced last fall that it would close the station and decommission it because the company was unable to grow a Midwestern nuclear fleet to take advantages of economies of scale and Kewaunee's power purchase agreements were ending at a time of projected low wholesale electricity prices in the region.

"This decision was based purely on economics. The dedicated employees have operated the station safely and well," said David Heacock, president of Dominion Nuclear and chief nuclear officer of Dominion. "We will keep our focus on safety as we transition the station toward decommissioning."

Kewaunee went into service on June 16, 1974. Operators began reducing power output at the station at 8 a.m. CDT and opened the electrical output circuit breakers shortly after 11 a.m. CDT, which removed the unit from the Midwest ISO transmission system. Over its life, the power station generated about 148 million megawatt-hours of electricity.

"Kewaunee Power Station achieved nearly 40 years of clean, safe and reliable operation, which is a testament to nuclear technology and the dedicated former and current employees," Heacock said. "The company has taken steps to assist Kewaunee employees during the transition process and in the coming months will begin working to place the station's systems safely in storage for decommissioning."

In the weeks ahead, station personnel will begin removing all 121 fuel assemblies from the reactor and storing them in the used fuel pool before commencing activities to place the unit in SAFSTOR, a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved method for long-term monitoring and storage of a closed nuclear unit. Under federal law, the company must decommission the unit and return the site to a green field condition within 60 years.

"This closing does not herald the end of our company's commitment to nuclear power," Heacock said. "It is a safe, reliable and carbon-free technology, but as with all forms of generation, it must compete on economics, including the necessity of being price competitive on a regional level."

Dominion is one of the nation's largest producers and transporters of energy, with a portfolio of approximately 27,500 megawatts of generation, 11,000 miles of natural gas transmission, gathering and storage pipeline and 6,300 miles of electric transmission lines. Dominion operates one of the nation's largest natural gas storage systems with 947 billion cubic feet of storage capacity and serves retail energy customers in 15 states. For more information about Dominion, visit the company's website at www.dom.com.

SOURCE Dominion
 

For further information: Media, Mark Kanz, (920) 304-1927, Mark.E.Kanz@dom.com; Richard Zuercher, (804) 920-5231, Richard.Zuercher@dom.com; Analysts, Nathan Frost, (804) 819-2187, Nathan.J.Frost@dom.com

 

5:10 PM Eastern 5/7/2013

ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More

Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers 154

Atomic Power Review is proud to host the 154th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers on this last Sunday of April, 2013.  This great feature both promotes the top English-language pro-nuclear blogs, and (by way of the nature of its operation) gives the general reader a pointer at what the authors of these blogs (or administrators in some cases) feel were the outstanding items of the week.

There's always a game here at Atomic Power Review when I do the Carnival; I show a photo from my vast archive of useless information and ask you to guess what it is.  We've been having more reports of correct guesses of late - so let's hope that keeps up.  For now, What is this?

Clearly, this is a significant construction site.  There is a river or stream outlet visible in the upper right quadrant of the photo and much more visibly a river along the top.  We see a large concave structure of sorts being built here (click to enlarge!) and a very heavy reinforced wall next to it. I'll give a further hint:  This photo is dated June 21, 1962.  Yes -- of course this is nuclear related!  The answer .. and much more .. to follow the Carnival.

----------

Atomic Insights - Rod Adams

Civil Disobedience May Be Required to Overcome Illogical EPA Radiation Limits.  Adams relates an exchange with an author of a recent popular article on LNT, and explains why he's adamant that the overly restrictive limits on radiation exposure be challenged and remove.

----------

Things Worse Than Nuclear Power

Six Earth Day Facts.  Facts about natural nuclear phenomena and the environment.  Some of these facts might really surprise you.

----------

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus

Nuclear Power and Carbon Emissions:  Gail Marcus takes on some erroneous allegations about the carbon emissions from nuclear power at Nuke Power Talk. She notes that some of them have been floating around for a long time, and analyzes why they may be believed and why they are wrong. Since one of the benefits of nuclear power that the public most appreciates is their low carbon emissions, it is important to set the record straight.

 

----------

 

ANS Nuclear Cafe (submitted by Paul Bowersox)

 

New EPA Guidelines for Response to Radioactivity Releases:  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released draft standards and recommendations for response in the event of a large release of radioactive material into the environment. Jim Hopf assesses the current and proposed policies and their underlying assumptions - and finds them quite unwise and indefensible. The draft EPA guidelines are out for public comment, and Hopf urges readers to respond.

 

----------

Science and Technology - Robert Hayes

Fukushima Showed No Radiation Health Consequences:  Robert Hayes examines the fact that there haven't been reports of radiation injury as a result of the March, 2011 Fukushima accident, using UNSCEAR and WHO documents as support; he also briefly discusses low-dose effects.

----------

Diary of a Nuclear Tourist - Suzanne Hobbs Baker

Day 72:  The Grand Finale.  Baker rounds up her grand European nuclear tour with a visit to AREVA's fuel reprocessing facility at La Hague.  Her visit is accompanied by David Hess of the World Nuclear Association.  The two give us a tour of the facility, with many details and interesting photos.  A grand conclusion to the series!

----------

Yes Vermont Yankee - Meredith Angwin

Meredith has two posts this Carnival.  In "Shaffer knows about spent fuel - Alvarez talks about it," she presents details of anti-nuclear activist Robert Alvarez's visit to Vermont.  At the date of the first post, only anti-nuclear "experts" were invited to testify at a legislative committee event on spent fuel.  Later, colleague Howard Shaffer was in fact invited to testify; this led to a second post on the subject which is entitled "Shaffer to Testify - Cheerful Wednesday."

----------

Canadian Energy Issues - Steve Aplin

Energy and work: saluting those who do the most work, and never stop—even for a second.  As a weekend warrior, Steve Aplin thought he was pretty amazing doing intense workouts like hot yoga and crossfit—until he crunched the numbers and realized his personal best would be barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit for several short minutes. That humbling revelation made him appreciate nuclear power plants, which produce gargantuan numbers of watts continuously for hundreds of days at a time, all the more.

 

----------

 

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

 

The Harvard Business Review looked at the the Spacex process for lowering the cost of space.

Spacex has a big goal, learned from the past, looking at the whole picture to find and prioritize opportunities, then refining key aspects of the space flight model to achieve their objective — is an approach that can make any organization more creative about cutting costs.

SpaceX approach innovates and transforms by looking at the entire business model instead of the parts. Cuts weren't just made to the physical rocket itself but to everything surrounding it — overhead, support services, development time frame, and more.

* Sustaining cost reductions over many years
* Reinvest for more innovation

Nextbigfuture looked at where the Spacex approach is being applied in energy.
Terrestrial Energy looks like it could make a radical difference in cost and supply of energy

 

Costs and Economics of Integral Molten Salt Reactor

 

Each 300 MW thermal MSR would generate $1 billion per year in oil revenue from the oilsands.
A 300 MW thermal reactor would be the same as a 100 MW electrical reactor. Even if costs were as much proportionally as a $10 billion 1 GWe conventional nuclear reactor (the high costs of the most expensive European or US projects.) the $1 billion cost would be recovered in about 2-4 years. Also, they indicated that there is no turbine to produce electricity since only steam is used. So the costs should be $700 million max.

This profitability means that the first 200 units should easily be profitable. Usually making more units has a improvement rate in lowering costs by a few percentage points for each later unit. The oilsand units would also generate the money to help payoff research and development costs, which would initial come from oilsand taxes and oilsand partners.

In previous design discussions about a similar Denatured Molten Salt Reactor , David LeBlanc believed that capital costs could be 25% to 50% less for a simple DMSR converter design than for modern LWRs (light water reactors).

Nextbigfuture calculates that the IMSR could get down to 0.86 cents per Kwh.

 

----------

 

The Hiroshima Syndrome - Leslie Corrice

 

Japanese High Court does Right Thing for Wrong Reason.  A high court in Japan has rejected the demands of a few Fukushima parents to evacuate tens of thousands of not-at-risk children to other parts of Japan. The court said there was no legal precedent for it. However, they should have used recent scientific reports on the good health of Fukushima children as their reason.

 

----------

 

That's it for this week's Carnival entries.  All that's left is to answer the question -- what was that picture at the top of this post?

 

 

The photo (and that above) are June 21, 1962 photos of the initial construction phases of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, located in Peach Bottom Township, York County, Pennsylvania, along the Susquehanna river.  These photos were provided to the press by Philadelphia Electric Company. 

 

Peach Bottom 1, as it's now known, was an experimental high-temperature gas cooled reactor rated 115 MWt / 40 MWe and which was built under the third round of the AEC "Power Demonstration Reactor Program."  The reactor plant vendor was the General Atomics Division of General Dynamics Corporation (usually referred to just as "General Atomics" or just GA) and the engineer and construction contractor for the plant was Bechtel Corporation.  Here is a brief history.

 

 

Philadephia Electric was involved early with nuclear energy, taking part from 1952 in what became the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant.  The company formed HTRDA, or High Temperature Reactor Development Associates along with 52 other utilities to research and develop high temperature designs, which culminated in a November 1958 proposal to the AEC to build a new design of General Atomics helium-cooled reactor.  The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy approved the project proposal in June 1959, and in August 1959 contracts were signed to build the plant at the location shown above.

 

The construction permit was issued in February 1962 (Permit No. CPPR-12)  - and you can see the progress by comparing the unspoiled site illustration (from a Peach Bottom souvenir brochure) and the June 1962 photos.

 

Below, artist's conception of the plant as designed.

 

 

 

The 14 foot diameter, 35-1/2 foot high carbon steel reactor vessel arrived on site in January 1964, and the fuel arrived one year later.  Another year later -- January, 1966 -- a low power operating license was granted so that fuel loading could commence the following month. 

 

February 1966  -- Start of Fuel Loading.

March 1966 -- Initial Criticality.

January 1967 -- Full Power License issued

May 1967 -- Full power reached

June 1967 -- Commence commercial operation

 

 

The core for this reactor contained 804 fuel elements, which as fuel contained both 93% enriched uranium carbide and thorium carbide dispersed in graphite pellets.  The reactor plant was designed to load follow at a rate of 3%/minute down to 30% power - and after final shutdown of the plant, Philadelphia Electric reported that the plant had in fact operated in the load following mode for the majority of its seven year operating time frame.

 

The helium coolant entered the core at 660F and exited at 1380F.  This allowed the plant to produce steam at 1450 PSIG and 1000F.

 

Operation was essentially as planned; however, the fuel elements began to develop cracks in 1969, and while activity released to the helium coolant was minimal, the decision was made to refuel the reactor with improved elements whose design eliminated or reduced the chance of such cracking.  This second core first started up in July, 1970.

 

 

 

The experimental nature of the plant and its small size led to the decision to shut it down permanently, which occurred in October 1974 at the second core's end-of-life.  There was just not economic support for a 40 MWe prototypical nuclear plant in the vastly expanding Philadelphia Electric system.  Plans were made to replace it.

 

The HTGR as a concept did not continue in the Eastern U.S.  While there was an initial attempt to build a further, developed HTGR at what became the site of the Ginna Nuclear Station, the decision was made to build a PWR there instead.  The next-generation HTGR was, in fact, built - but as the Ft. St. Vrain nuclear station, out West. 

 

The site of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station was not destined, though, to become a footnote to nuclear energy history.  Two much more powerful General Electric BWR units were built on a much expanded site footprint.  Below, we see Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 under construction beyond the original unit and its Visitor Center (lower left corner of photo).

 

 

 

Peach Bottom 1 was defueled and placed in SAFSTOR condition, in which it remains today.  From the NRC website entry: 

 

Peach Bottom - Unit 1

The plant, in York County, Pa., was shut down in October 1974 and is in SAFSTOR with no significant dismantlement underway. Active decommissioning of Unit 1 is not expected until 2034, when Units 2 and 3 are scheduled to shut down. The PSDAR public meeting was held on June 29, 1998. The spent fuel has been removed from the site and is stored at the Idaho National Laboratory.

I hope you've enjoyed the 154th Carnival and the look back at Peach Bottom 1.  Thanks for visiting!

Illustrations from Will Davis collection.  Source material includes "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station" by Philadelphia Electric Company, "The Atomic Energy Deskbook," Hogerton / Reinhold Publishing 1963, and "Final Summary Report on the Peach Bottom End of Life Program," K. P. Steward - General Atomic Company July 1978.

11:20 AM Eastern 4/28/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Read More