Strike 1 – Solar Power
When the NJ Clean Energy Program started in 2001, there were six (6) solar energy systems and a nameplate capacity of nine (9) kilowatts. By December 31, 2010 there were over 7000 systems with a combined capacity close to 300 megawatts, MW, of solar electric generating capacity. In the first six months of 2011, another 100 MW was added, bringing the total to 400 MW by June 30, 2011. By these metrics, the NJ Clean Energy Program has been successful.
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Restuccia and Ben German reported (here) on E2 Wire, “the Hill’s Energy & Environment Blog” that:
Two nuclear reactors at the North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Va., automatically shut down Tuesday shortly after a magnitude-5.9 earthquake shook the state and surrounding area.
The plant lost offsite power and is now running its cooling systems on diesel generators….
A dozen nuclear plants in the eastern part of the United States have declared “unusual events” because of the earthquake.
It’s good to know that the diesel powered emergency cooling systems are operational, and the operators (presumably) have sufficient fuel to keep the cooling systems running during the emergency.
But …
This illustrates a major problem with nuclear power:
Rather than enhance the security of the grid and infrastructure nuclear power must be shut down during certain classes of emergency.
A 1.0 gigawatt nuclear power plant is made up of one or two reactors. Both must be shut down during an earthquake, however, as we saw from the melt-downs in Japan, the emergency cooling system must stay up. A 1.0 gigawatt wind farm is made up of 286 separate and discrete turbines of 3.5 mw each. A 1.0 gigawatt solar farm is made up of 5 million 200 watt modules and thousands of inverters. These are made up of hundreds or thousands of identical modules. Like nuclear power plants, they can be engineered to withstand earthquakes. But unlike nuclear power plants THEY DON’T NEED EMERGENCY POWER DURING THE EMERGENCY! And even if a few solar modules or wind turbines fail due to an earthquake and aftershocks, most will come on after the storm! And there is no fossil fuel based emergency cooling system needed for solar power or wind power systems!
Green Living Festival
Tweet I am presenting “Beyond Fuel: From Consuming Natural Resources to Harnessing Natural Processes,” a discussion of the hidden costs, or “economic externalities,” of nuclear power, coal, and oil, and the non-obvious benefits of wind, solar, marine hydro and efficiency at the Space Coast Green Living Festival, Cocoa Beach, Florida, Sept 17, 2011.
The festival is sponsored by the Cocoa Beach Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. It will be at the Cocoa Beach Courtyard by Marriott.
In “Why We Still Need Nuclear,” the “op-ed” piece written in the New York Times, July 30, 2011, Tom Kilgore, the President and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority, seems to have made up his mind to attempt to complete the Bellefonte 1 nuclear power plant, in Hollywood, Alabama. Mr. Kilgore is in good company: the President of Iran, Mahmoud Achmadinejad, also wants to build nuclear power plants.
The TVA began work on the Bellefonte nuclear plants in 1974. Construction was suspended in 1988, after the TVA spent about $4.1 Billion on the plant. The TVA wants to spend another $5 Billion over the next six to eight years to complete the plant. It would therefore cost a total of $9.1 Billion to construct a 1.26 gigawatt plant. That’s $7.22 Billion per gigawatt, plus interest, over a period that spans 34 years, with construction in three phases: 14 years of work from ’74 to ’88, 22 years of non-work, from ’88 to 2012, and another six to eight years of work. (Times Free Press, TVA News, TVA Environment).
This suggests the real reason why the TVA wants to complete the plant. Currently Bellefonte 1 a $4.1 billion liability on the TVA’s books. If the TVA adds another $5 Billion, this $4.1 hot white elephant will be magically transformed into a cool (but heat producing) 9.1 billion asset. Continue reading
Tweet The earthquake and tsunami that occurred in Japan has led to what the Washington Post now describes as three nuclear meltdowns (here).
“Japan has been bracing for major aftershocks since the 9.0-magnitude earthquake March 11 triggered a powerful tsunami, creating one of the largest disasters in this country’s history. The catastrophe left tens of thousands dead or missing, and scores more without homes or businesses. It also prompted the most serious nuclear crisis in a quarter century at the Fukushima plant, where three reactors sustained meltdowns.” Chico Harlan, July 9, 2011, “7.0 Aftershock Hits Japan Coast,” in the Washington Post, 7/9/11.
NBC Nightly News, June 28, 2011. Lisa Myers reports,
Pete Stockton, former Department of Energy official, says “the public should be concerned but not alarmed as a wildfire inches closer to a nuclear weapons facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico.”
New Mexico fire managers scrambled Tuesday to reinforce crews battling a third day against an out-of-control blaze at the edge of one of the top U.S. nuclear weapons production centers.
The fire’s leading edge burned to within a few miles of a dump site where some 20,000 barrels of plutonium-contaminated waste, including clothing and equipment, is stored at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, fire officials said.
The town of Los Alamos, home to about 12,000 people, was evacuated Monday afternoon as a precaution.
The wildfire — which has burned 60,000 acres, or 93 square miles, in just two days — was as close as 50 feet from the Los Alamos National Laboratory grounds on Tuesday afternoon.
On Monday, a spot fire at the lab was quickly contained, and lab officials said no contamination was released.
Lab officials and fire managers said they’re confident the flames won’t reach key buildings or areas where radioactive waste is stored in barrels above ground.
in the Missouri River
Tweet The flooded Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant is not exactly like the nuclear plants at Fukushima Daichi and Fukushima Diana. There are three main differences: First of all, there’s one plant, not 12. The difference of scale is tremendous. Secondly, it was offline – shut down for refueling – when flooded. Meaning, we got lucky, really lucky. Finally, it was hit by the gradually increasing pressures of rising floodwaters, not by an earthquake, a tsunami, and aftershocks. This is huge!
Steve Everly, at the Kansas City Star, reported that David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists was “Reassured.” (here). I spoke to Mr. Lochbaum about the flooded plant on June, 29, 2011.
Most of the releases of radioactive material, generally tritium and tritiated water, occur when plants are online. Because the plant was offline, very little radioactive material has been released into the biosphere as a result of the flooding. While it is easy to filter heavy metals, it is very expensive to isolate tritiated water from water.
The damages due to the flooding are likely to be in the ballpark of $1,000,000 per day in lost revenue – $23 Million since June 6 – because the plant produces power worth about $1,000,000 per day. The buildings that have been damaged are collateral buildings, not the reactor itself. Those buildings would be less expensive to repair than the reactor.
At 35 years old, the plant is near the end of its design life. While we can engineer plants that are as safe as the NRC requires, new wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and efficiency cost less than new nuclear or coal with carbon sequestration. Safety, security, and waste management are not the challenges with sustainable technologies that they present with nuclear and coal. Therefore, it seems logical to consider that once it is decommissioned, the plant will be replaced with wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and efficiency.
Courtesy of AP, NY Times, Fellowship of the Minds
Tweet Omaha, Nebraska. Flooding on the Missouri River at The Cooper and Fort Calhoun nuclear power stations. I suppose the good news is that given the flooding, one or both of these two Nebraska plants will be decommissioned after the floodwates recede, so there will soon be one or two fewer nuclear plants operating in the United States. And terrorists will have a difficult time attacking these plants now that they are surrounded by a moat. The real good news, if you can call it that, is that these floods are the result of heavy rains, not a tsunami triggered by an earthquake. The pressures are different. It is a steady buildup and which will be followed by steady decrease. It is not the surge / vacuum of a tsunami. And there was no earthquake and series of aftershocks.
Bucolic? Pastoral? Looks that way, but looks can be deceiving. First of all, there’s Indian Point 1. Then there’s the water issue. Other issues are waste and national security.
Operating Modalities, Copyright, (c), 2011 L. J. Furman
Indian Point 1
Talk about externalities! “Zombie” since ’74 and scheduled as such for another 25 years, total of 52 years. NRC. What does it cost to maintain and manage as a “zombie?” And who pays? The owners or the taxpayers? And did the plant produce so much power in the 12 years of operation that it will make a profit after 52 years of being managed and serviced?
Indian Point 2
Indian Point 3
(source: Entergy / Indian Point website)
Summary – Indian Point is a 2.083 GW complex. Replacing it with new nuclear would cost about $12 to $18 billion, plus the cost of fuel, security, and the costs of interest during the 8 to 10 years of construction. Replacing it with solar would require about 2 million PV solar panels, at a cost of $8 to $12 billion, or 570 wind turbines at a cost of $4 to $6 billion. 2.0 gw of wind and solar do not require 1,680,000 gallons per minute of cooling water, or even 1.0 gallons per minute. Solar and wind do not require fuel and do not produce waste. Nor do they present national security challenges.
Energy Alternatives
Tweet After Chernobyl, Hans Bethe, pictured at left, said “the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power” (PBS). Dr. Bethe is right. Managing nuclear power and our energy infrastructure is not limited to physics and engineering. It also involves economics, human ecology, national security and systems dynamics. It is logical to conclude that because the Chernobyl disaster was a hydrogen explosion in a badly designed nuclear power plant brought about by Soviet style mis-management, nuclear technology can be implemented safely. However, the data from Three Mile Island and Fukushima suggest that nuclear power, when implemented safely, is too expensive to compete with alternatives (hence the industry needs loan guarantees here in the USA). We need to think about energy in the context of Systems Dynamics, as discussed in “Thinking in Systems,” by Dr. Donella Meadows, also pictured at left, of MIT, Dartmouth, and the Sustainability Institute.
Similar arguments have been advanced after Fukushima. “As long as we don’t build them near earthquake faults, especially earthquake faults near oceans …” While the probability of an accident is low (altho business as usual does raise some concerns) the probability of an accident that occurs being catastrophic is very high!
Looking at Indian Point, which is on an earthquake fault, and thinking about systems, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima …
The area within a 50 mile radius of Indian Point includes New York City, Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau counties of New York, western Connecticut, and northern New Jersey. About 20 million people live there. Entergy says it’s “Safe, Secure, and Vital.” Others – who live near the plant – say it’s not safe, not secure, not vital, and Should Be Closed!
in black and white, because some ideas are.
Tweet During the Great Depression the Classical Economists said “Unemployment is voluntary. Business owners will not voluntarily keep the means of production idle.” While he had been a student of classical economics, John Maynard Keynes observed that the data didn’t fit the theory. And, he reasoned, if the observable data don’t fit the theory, the theory must be flawed. “Business owners are risk averse,” he saw. “A employee needs to be productive, needs to make widgets. But if no one is buying widgets, then contrary to classical theory, factory owners will fire workers and keep capital idle rather than hire workers to create excess inventory. That’s just common sense.”
We see this today.
When unemployment was low, for example in the United States during the tech boom of the 1990’s, people acted on the premise that “There is so much work that we could hire and good people and train them.” Today hiring managers seem to be acting on the premise that “There are so many people looking for work that they can wait for the perfect candidate.” Perfection being unattainable, jobs go unfilled. This is ok, in this context, because
Keynes also observed that the government is an employer that does not need to worry about going out of business. Building infrastructure is government employment that is investment for the future. These observations are as valid today as they were 80 years ago.
Tweet An op-ed article in the Telegraph, UK, last year urged President Obama “to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project” and by so doing we could “reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.” The article suggests we invent and commercialize nuclear reactors designed around radioactive decay of thorium.
The article concludes with the assertion that renewables can’t meet our needs. But that’s asserting a belief, not reporting scientifically observable data or a scientifically disprovable hypothesis. And the better question in that regard is not: “Can renewable and sustainable energy meet our needs?”
But: “How can renewable and sustainable energy meet our needs?”
From Powerful Aftershock Complicates Japan’s Nuclear Efforts, by Hiroko Tabuchi and Andrew Pollack in The New York Times.
TOKYO — The strongest aftershock to hit since the day of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan rocked a wide section of the country’s northeast on Thursday night, prompting a tsunami alert, raising fears of new strains on the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and knocking out external power at three other nuclear facilities.
The public broadcaster, NHK, said two people had died in Miyagi and Yamagata, including a 63-year-old woman whose ventilator stopped working in the blackout. Many more were injured. About 3.6 million households were still without power Friday morning.
No tsunami was detected, the Japan Meteorological Agency said. The aftershock had a magnitude of 7.1, according to the United States Geological Survey; last month’s quake, which devastated much of the northeastern coast, was measured at 9.0.
But the agency warned of more aftershocks going forward. Many coastal communities were ravaged last month, and some have become even more vulnerable to tsunami waves because sea walls were breached and land levels sank.
Early Friday, injuries were reported in Sendai City and across the region, and blackouts continued in some areas, according to NHK. Five coal-powered power plants also shut down, adding to concerns over energy shortages.
Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were told to take cover until the tsunami warning was lifted, but Japanese officials said at a news conference that water was still able to be pumped into three damaged reactors and a spent-fuel pool at a fourth in the crucial effort to keep their nuclear fuel cool. The plant’s cooling systems were knocked out by last month’s quake and tsunami.
Nitrogen also continued to be piped into the No. 1 reactor, the company said, in an effort to prevent a possible explosion.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the power station, said early Friday that it had found no new damage to the plant, and workers had resumed work to identify the source of leaks, found last week, of radioactive water into pipes and tunnels under the complex. Monitoring posts at the plant were not showing any immediate increase in radiation levels, the company said.
Asking a nuclear engineering professor “Is radiation bad?” is like asking Charlie Sheen “Is cocaine bad?”
On “Morning Edition” today, 3/30/11, Renee Montagne did just that when she interviewed Professor Peter Caracappa, a member of the faculty of the nuclear engineering department of RPI (Interview / nuclear engineering at RPI). As is typically the case, what was left out of the conversation could have been more interesting than what was in the conversation. My questions for Professor Caracappa are below: Continue reading
