The Fires of Fukushima
Back in the 1960’s Nuclear Power was pitched as “Too Cheap to Meter.” Today the state of the art can be summarized in 15 words:
Chernobyl, Fukushima, San Onofre, Fort Calhoun, Indian Point, Radioactive Waste, Evacuation Plans and Emergency Response. Continue reading
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station
Two Years Ago, April, 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear power station, on the banks of the Missouri River, north of Omaha, Nebraska, was shut down for refueling. It should have been a routine operation. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI.Org, here, “U.S. nuclear reactors shut down once every 18 to 24 months to refuel approximately one-third of the reactor. In the 1980s and early ’90s the average refueling outage lasted about three months. Over the past decade, refueling outage durations have improved substantially. Now a typical refueling outage lasts one month.” Clearly Fort Calhoun, shut down for refueling 28 months ago in April, 2011, is not typical. Continue reading
Fukushima
Jeff Hanson, spokesman for the Omaha Public Power District, OPPD, in discussing the Fort Calhoun reactor, closed since April, 2011 for refueling then, in June, 2011, due to flooding, said,
“[Nuclear power is] a reliable source of electricity that’s carbon-free. That becomes more valuable going forward,” OPPD spokesman Jeff Hanson said.
This assertion that nuclear power is “carbon free” or that it produces “no greenhouse gases” is based on a simplified view of one aspect of the nuclear power – fissioning uranium – and ignores the complete picture.
Fallout Map from Fukushima Disaster
While fissioning uranium does not release carbon dioxide, when we look at the entire fuel / waste cycle we see that getting uranium out of the ground, fashioning it into fuel rods, transporting the fuel rods to the plant and managing the waste requires energy, and much of this energy releases carbon dioxide.
Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station, within the Missouri
The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant, (OPPD / NRC) 19 Miles from Omaha, Nebraska, was shut-down for refueling in April, 2011. Flooded by the Missouri River in June, 2011, the plant remains shut-down. It Will Be Two Years – 2 YEARS – In April!
The Omaha Public Power District, OPPD has raised rates 6.9% to finance a $143 million repair bill. This does not include the costs to the OPPD to purchase electricity that the plant would provide – which is 25% of the power that the OPPD needs on a daily basis.. This also does not include costs to replace teflon coated wiring – which disintegrates on exposure to high levels of radiation – and costs to repair some of the plant’s support structures. This also probably does not include the costs to the district for Excelon to run the plant for the next 20 years, reported on Jan. 28, 2013, by Kevin Cole, of Omaha.com, the Omaha World-Herald, (here),
“For the first year of management work, OPPD will pay Exelon between $20 million and $26.5 million.”
In a telephone interview with me, in August, 2011, David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, estimated the total cost of maintaining the plant and purchasing replacement electricity to be $1.0 million per day – roughly $600 million, to date.
By asking Exelon to run the plant, it looks like the OPPD has decided to keep the plant running. Similarly, by requiring the OPPD to do what needs to be done to bring the plant back up, it seems like the NRC has decided that this 50 year old and severely constrained nuclear power plant is worth bringing back on line. Who is asking whether or not this is a good idea? It seems to me that OPPD would be better off asking Warren Buffett, Omaha based head of Berkshire Hathaway how to manage their assets than asking Exelon to spend whatever it takes to “Bring this bad boy back on-line.”
In the 54 years between 1957, when the Price Anderson Act was passed, and 2011 we have:
The World Nuclear Association has a detailed summary of the state of the industry (here), at Popular Logistics, We have concluded that a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the system and the risks from existing or future nuclear plants demands a paradigm shift to efficient use of sustainable energy.
The people of Fukushima – and Japan – are concerned that their food is “salted” with radioactive isotopes from the three reactors that melted downs. And they don’t trust their government. They feel it is too trusting of the people in the nuclear power industry (NPR). And we see the same cozy relationship between the regulatory agencies and the regulated industry in the United States. (PopularLogistics).
The “No More Fukushimas” walk from Oyster Creek to Vermont Yankee continues – and it will pass Indian Point today, March 11, 2012 (here).
The Japanese have closed 52 of their 54 nuclear power plants.
In the US, eight plants, from North Carolina to Connecticut were closed in August, 2011 because of Hurricane Irene. Two plants in Virginia were closed because of an earthquake. Fort Calhoun, the plant that was built on the bank of the Missouri River, near Omaha, Nebraska, that was shut down in May, 2011 for refueling and kept off-line due to heavy rains in June 2011 and 9 months later remains shut down. While the distribution of radioactive isotopes is minimal, and mostly tritium, the financial cost (not counting waste cleanup) is $1.0 million per day. These costs will be carried on the shoulders of the ratepayers, not the owners of the plant (here).
When Excelon whined that “upgrading Oyster Creek would cost too much; they would have to close it down,” Gov. Chris Christie said “Ok, then close it down.” The folks in Georgia are not as bold as the Honorable Governor of New Jersey. When Georgia Power said “In order to build two new 1.17 GW reactors at the Vogtle complex, we need to charge ratepayers for construction before we break ground, the NRC said “OK, and here are loan guarantees” (here).
But Georgia is the exception to the rule. Mycle Schneider, describing the Worldwatch Report he wrote on nuclear power last year, said (Press Release / Report):
“The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of this industry is written, Fukushima is likely to introduce its final chapter.”
Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in the foreword to the report, wrote,
“The Fukushima accident has just vaporized the balance sheet of the world’s #4 power company, TEPCO… this … could cost $100-plus billion… with such an unforgiving technology, accidents anywhere are accidents everywhere.”
Popular Logistics is a blog. We have the resources to write one or two articles per week, and cover a variety of issues. The professional news media, i.e., The New York Times, National Public Radio are able to commit substantial resources to these issues.
Nuclear Crisis in Japan will lead you to a collection of articles about Japan, Fukushima and the future of nuclear power from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
Matthew L. Wald (preceding link to Mr. Wald’s posts on the Green Blog, Transcripts Show U.S. Confusion Early in Japan Nuclear Crisis ; (on NYTimes.com)
Andrew C. Revkin, Nuclear Risk and Fear, from Hiroshima to Fukushima from the Dot Earth Blog, also of The Times,
Mr. Wald, again, Sizing Up Health Impacts a Year After Fukushima.
We now are experiencing the effects of four melt-downs and one partial melt-down in the 54 years since the Price Anderson Act was signed. This is four melt-downs too many. This is one meltdown every 13.5 years, one melt-down or partial melt-down every 11 years. While this is too small for statistical analysis, there have been melt-downs at four of the world’s 440 nuclear power plants. That’s a small number – about 0.9%. But the accidents were and remain catastrophic.
And in addition, nuclear power is expensive in terms of time and money for new plants (NPR). It’s too expensive for investors given the choice; that’s why Georgia Power asked for – and got – loan guarantees and permission to charge ratepayers in advance for the money to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants (here).
As noted above:
We must understand the dynamics of the system and risks from existing or future nuclear plants and shift the paradigm to efficient use of sustainable energy.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, has voted to allow Georgia Power to spend $14 Billion of ratepayer monies to build two reactors, Vogtle 3 and 4 near Waynesboro, Georgia. These would be the first new nuclear plants in the US in 35 years. Opponents say “we don’t need the power, but the utility wants the revenue stream.” Supporting this allegation Georgia Power plans to charge ratepayers – customers – for the costs of construction WHILE BUILDING THE PLANTS – BEFORE THE ARE ONLINE. see Georgia Power – Nuclear – Recovering Financing Costs.
Scott Peterson, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, was quoted on Morning Edition on Friday, 2/10/12, here, ” saying,
Nuclear plants, because they are very large, 24/7 power producers, really anchor the entire U.S. grid for electricity,”
He also said,
“Gas prices are unpredictable, and so is energy from wind and solar.”
He’s wrong on all three counts.
The Fort Calhoun reactor, on the Missouri River in Nebraska was shut down for refueling in May, 2011 . It stayed shut down due to flooding. It was offline throughout the summer and fall, (my coverage here and here) and as far as I know it is still offline. According to David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the shutdown cost the plant’s owners $1 million per day – $100 million if it was brought back online in September, $250 million if it is still offline. And I would hazard a guess that the owners asked for and received permission to charge the ratepayers those $1.0 million per day. (As far as I know the plant is still offline. I will update this post when I have more information.)
Regarding the Vogtle plants … the plan is to build two Westinghouse AP 1000 pressurized water reactors, here. Theses are 1154 MWe plant, that, according to Westinghouse,
“use the forces of nature and simplicity of design to enhance plant safety and operations and reduce construction costs.”
They are forecast to cost $14 Billion. $14 Billion divided by 2,308 MWe is $6.065 per MWe. That does not include the costs of security, fuel or waste management
Solar and wind costs less, takes a lot less time to deploy, do not require fuel, do not produce dangerous toxic wastes, do not present a target to terrorists and do not require special security infrastructures.
Tweet 
While it ain’t over till it’s over, 2011 is over. A lot that could have happened, didn’t. Obama didn’t resign, Donald Trump didn’t throw his hat into the ring or divorce his current wife and marry one or more Kardashians. Newt Gingrich threw his hat into the ring, but also didn’t divorce his current wife and marry one or more Kardashians. These are the most significant events of 2011.
Eight nuclear power plants from South Carolina to Connecticut were shut down in the aftermath of the earthquake that struck with an epicenter in Virginia August 23, 2011, and Hurricane Irene a few days later (Popular Logistics, here). In the words of Mycle Schneider, describing the World Watch Institute report he authored, “The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of this industry is written, Fukushima is likely to introduce its final chapter,” (click here). However, the three melt-downs at Fukushima, coupled with the melt-down at Chernobyl in 1986 and the partial melt-down at Three Mile Island in 1979, suggest a probability of one melt-down every 14 years.
Tweet Nuclear power diminishes National Security and the stability of the electric grid.
Consider the Brunswick, Fort Calhoun, Millstone, North Anna, and Oyster Creek nuclear power plants, and the Fukushima melt-downs. And consider the “Mobley Factor.”
The Brunswick nuclear plants in North Carolina, and the Millstone nuclear power plants in Connecticut were brought to “reduced power” in preparation for Hurricane Irene. The Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey was shut down. The North Anna nuclear plant, about 90 miles from Richmond, Virginia, was shut down Because of the earthquake that hit the east coast of the United States on Tuesday, August, 23, 2011( Popular Logistics coverage here). The Fort Calhoun, Nebraska, nuclear plant, pictured above, near Omaha, Nebraska, shut down in May, 2011, for refueling, remains shut down (losing $1.0 million per day) due to the flooding of the Missouri River that began June 6, 2011. (Popular Logistics coverage here and here, photos are here).
In an emergency we know that nuclear plants will be shut down, and therefore not generating power. However, they will require emergency power and emergency response resources.
“The Mobley Factor” refers to Sharif Mobley, an American currently in prison in Yemen, suspected of ties to Al Queda. Before going to Yemen, Mr. Mobley worked as a laborer in six nuclear power plants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, including the Salem and Hope Creek plants in New Jersey, the Peach Bottom, Limerick and Three Mile Island plants in Pennsylvania, and the Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland. Mr. Mobley had unrestricted access to those plants. Equipped with a cell phone he could have taken pictures, lots of pictures, also known as “Actionable Intelligence.”
Bloomberg News reported (here) “Federal regulations require nuclear reactors to be in a ‘safe shutdown condition,’ cooled to less than 300 degrees Fahrenheit, two hours before hurricane-force winds strike.” Paradoxical, but nuclear power plants – a source of power – depend on fossil fuel.
The Bloomberg News article continues, “Plant operators typically begin shutting down reactors 12 hours before winds exceeding 74 miles per hour are predicted to arrive, said Roger Hannah, a spokesman with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Region II office in Atlanta.”
Reuters (here) reported that the operators are working to bring online the various nuclear power plants shut down due to the hurricane and the earthquake.
STATE OWNER PLANT STATUS RESTART CAPACITY MW -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Connecticut Dominion Millstone 2 REDUCED UNKNOWN 884 Connecticut Dominion Millstone 3 REDUCED UNKNOWN 1,227 New Jersey Exelon Oyster Creek OFFLINE UNKNOWN 619 N. Carolina Progress Brunswick 1 REDUCED 24-36 Hours 938 N. Carolina Progress Brunswick 1 REDUCED 24-36 Hours 937 Virginia Dominion North Anna 1 OFFLINE UNKNOWN 980.5 Virginia Dominion North Anna 2 OFFLINE UNKNOWN 972.9 Nebraska Fort Calhoun OFFLINE UNKNOWN 484 --------------------------------------------------------------------------