Tag Archives: Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Power, One Year After Fukushima

In the 54 years between 1957, when the Price Anderson Act was passed, and 2011 we have:

Experienced four melt-downs and one partial melt-down at nuclear power plants,
An increasing amount of radioactive waste that we really don’t know how to deal with, but must manage for hundreds of years – or thousands.
Security Concerns. Sharif Mobley, an American, arrested in Yemen in March, 2010, suspected of being a covert agent of Al Queda connected to Anwar Al Awlaki (CS Monitor), and who, before going to Yemen, worked at nuclear power plants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (NJ News Room).

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.

No More Fukushimas: From Coal, Oil, and Nuclear to Sustainable Energy

Smoke from three meltdowns and other fires

Fukushima reactors, after tsunami

On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster shocked the world. Sadly, the thinkers in the anti-nuclear world were not complete surprised. We were startled, but we know that disasters, while unpredictable, are inevitable. Disasters are built into the nuclear power system. The best engineers are fallible. (Anyone who drives a car or uses a personal computer knows this.) We can engineer nuclear reactors to be “reasonably” safe – but that costs a lot of money. That’s why ALL nuclear reactors leak “acceptable” levels of tritium – it is too expensive to capture all the tritium.

We also know

While the probability of an accident may be low, the probability is very high that an accident, if it occurs, will be
In Three Mile Island, in 1979, Chernobyl, in 1968, and Fukushima, in 2011, we have four melt-downs and one partial melt-down since the Price Anderson Act was first signed into law in 1956. That’s four melt-downs in 56 years. While it’s a too small to give a precise statistical measure, it offers empirical data to suggest a high probability of a catastrophic accident every 14 years.

In command economies, such as existed in the Soviet Union, or exists in Iran and North Korea, it is illegal – and dangerous – to question the government. In market economies, such as exist in the United States, Europe, and Japan, there are strong incentives to cut corners.

But back to Fukushima – following the disaster, nearly all of Japan’s 54 Nuclear Plants have been shut down due to pressure by the Japanese people.

The disaster deposited radioactive fallout on a semicircular area of Japan with a radius of 50 miles. It caused the permanent displacement of 160,000 people. An unknown amount of radioactive materials have been flushed into the Pacific Ocean. TEPCO, the owners of the reactors, have a $100 Billion liability (that will probably be absorbed by Japanese citizens over the next 20 or 50 years).

So after Fukushima, the question that we ought to be asking is not: “Can solar, wind, geothermal, marine current and other sustainable technologies meet our energy needs?”

The question is: “HOW can solar, wind, geothermal, marine current and other sustainable technologies meet our energy needs?”

I will be speaking on Monday, March 5th, at 6:00pm, at the Unitarian Universalist Meeting House on West Front Street in Lincroft, NJ. This will be part of a series of discussions along a 250 mile walk from Oyster Creek, in Ocean County, NJ to Vermont, Yankee, in Vernon, Vermont. I will make a statement similar to the talk at the Space Coast Green Living Festival, reported here.

A group of Japanese Buddhists, Fukushima eye-witnesses and US citizens will be walking over 250 miles from Oyster Creek to Indian Point to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants to bring awareness of the terrible risks of nuclear power. The “No More Fukushimas Peace Walk” is being led by Jun Yasuda.

Scheduled events open to the public:

Friday March 2nd, 7pm, “Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster for the U.S and continuing Japanese crisis”
Little Theatre, Georgian Court University, 900 Lakewood Ave, Lakewood N.J.

Speakers:

Sachiko Komagata, P.T., Ph.D, and Associate Professor & Chair, Department of Holistic Health & Exercise Science
Rachel Dawn Fudim-Davis, New Jersey Organizer, Food & Water Watch
Jeff Tittel, Director of Sierra Club, NJ Chapter
Sister Mary-Paula Cancienne, RSM, PhD.

Hosts: Sister Mary Bilderback, Mary Paula Cancienne
For information Kasturi DasGupta, PhD 732-987-2336

Saturday, March 3, 6:00 pm,
Sky Walk Cafeteria, 2nd Floor, 129 Hooper Ave, Toms River, NJ (Connected to parking garage)
Speakers:

Sky Sims, Sustainable energy specialist;
Joseph Mangano, Executive Director of Radiation and Public Health Project;
Ed M. Koziarski and Junko Kajino, Filmakers

For information Burt Gbur, 732-240-5107

Sunday, March 4th, 6:00 pm,
Murray Grove Retreat Conference Center, Lanoka-Harbor, NJ Church Lane and US Highway 9
Speakers:

Willie DeCamp, Save Barnegat Bay,
Greg Auriemma, Esq., Chair, Ocean County Sierra Club,
Peter Weeks.

For information Matt Reid, 609-312-6798

Monday, March 5th, 6:00pm,
Unitarian Universalist Meeting House, West Front Street, Lincroft, NJ

Speakers:

Larry Furman, “Beyond Fuel: The Transition from Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power to Sustainable Energy.”
Japanese walkers share their post-Fukushima experiences in Japan

For Information:. Elaine Held (732-774-3492).

Thursday, March 8, 6:00 pm
Puffin Foundation, 20 Puffin Way, Teaneck, N.J.

Speaker:

Sidney Goodman, Author ‘Asleep At the Geiger Counter: Nuclear Destruction of the Planet and How to Stop It’, ISBN: 978-1-57733-107-0, available from Blue Dolphin Publishing, and elsewhere.

For information Jules Orkin, 201-566-8403

The walk will start at 10am on Saturday, March 3rd near the Oyster Creek area, and end at 129 Hooper Ave, Toms River. Starting times and places for March 4th and 5thwill also be announced on February 27th.
————————————————–
The mission of the Walk:

A plea for the people of New Jersey, New York and New England to recognize the grave dangers that nuclear energy poses to our lives, property, and all life on the planet.

We walk together in love and solidarity for a nuclear free future, and a more just, sustainable, and compassionate world built on respect for all living beings.

JOIN THE WALK FOR AN HOUR OR A DAY.

Edith Gbur 732-240-5107
Christian Collins 413-320- 2856
Cathy Sims 732-280-2244

Frontline: “Inside Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown”

PBS Frontline broadcast, earlier this week, Inside Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown: “An unprecedented account of the crisis inside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex after the devastating earthquake and tsunami.” That’s their own description, but it’s fair, as we expect from this outstanding program. And – if you’ve got a decent connection – you don’t even need a conventional television to watch it.

Which is yet another illustration of the point that access to broadband, reasonably priced, should be thought of as access to telephone or mail service. A point that, I am embarassed to say, has been dawning on me only gradually. On that subject we refer you, generally, to Stimulating Broadband.

Nuclear Industry in Japan – Not Unlike the Nuclear Industry in the USA

Map of Japan showing US and Japanese evacuation zones

Fukushima Nuclear sites and Evacuation Zones. Courtesy, National Post.

Map of Japan showing Fukushima Prefecture

Fukushima Prefecture. Courtesy NY Times.

I drew four conclusions after reading Hiroko Tabuchi’s article, A Confused Nuclear Cleanup, in the NY Times, and looking at the US Government’s evacuation map, pictured above (obtained at the National Post, here.

The Fukushima disaster is bad, really bad.
The Japanese want to clean it up; but don’t know how.
The nuclear industry in the USA is just like the nuclear industry in Japan – and that’s also really bad.
In a market economy there may to too much pressure to increase shareholder value to spend enough on safety. (In a command economy, such as existed in the Soviet Union and exists in China, North Korea, and perhaps, Iran, it is illegal to criticize the government and therefore likely that necessary investments in safety will not be made.)

Here are the essential facts, as reported:

The Japanese government wants to clean an 8,000 sq mi area near Fukushima [about the size of New Jersey] to allow residents to return to their homes.

A day laborer wiping down windows at an abandoned school nearby shrugged at the work crew’s haphazard approach. “We are all amateurs,” he said. “Nobody really knows how to clean up radiation.”

The Japanese government awarded the first contracts to three giant construction companies — corporations that have no more expertise in radiation cleanup than anyone else does, but that profited hugely from Japan’s previous embrace of nuclear power.

“We are building expertise as we work,” said Fumiyasu Hirai, a Taisei spokesman. [Taisei is one of the three companies.] “It is a process of trial and error, but we are well-equipped for the job.”

“It’s a scam,” said Kiyoshi Sakurai, a critic of the nuclear industry and a former researcher at a forerunner to the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, which is overseeing this phase of decontamination. “Decontamination is becoming big business.”

The cleanup contracts, Mr. Sakurai and other critics contend, are emblematic of the too-cozy ties they say have long existed between the nuclear industry and government.

“The Japanese nuclear industry is run so that the more you fail, the more money you receive,” Mr. Sakurai said.

Though big companies have won the main contracts so far, the actual cleanup — essentially a simple but tedious task of scrubbing and digging — is being carried out by numerous subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, who in turn rely on untrained casual laborers to do the dirtiest decontamination work.

This tiered structure, in which fees are siphoned off and wages dwindle each step down the ladder, follows the familiar pattern of Japan’s nuclear and construction industries.

Fukushima coverage on Popular Logistics:

Earthquake, Tsunami, and Energy Policy, March 11, 2011
Nuclear Power: What Future?, March 27, 2011,
Nuclear Power and Russian Roulette, June 20, 2011
“Three Meltdowns at Fukushima” – Washington Post, July 11, 2011,

Nuclear Power – or Un Clear Power

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.

Gas prices are rising. They may be difficult to predict on a day to day basis, but the trend is upward.
Similarly, solar and wind are also predictable. The Department of Energy, DoE, knows precisely how much wind and sun passes over every square inch of the United States, and how much sunlight hits every square inch of the United States over the course of a year. And how much electricty a wind turbine or a photovoltaic solar energy system will produce anywhere in the US. The PVWatts solar calculator, for example,here, http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/, tells you how much power a solar array will produce over the course of a year.
And nuclear is not 24 x 7. While the waste is 24 hours by 7 days per week by 365 days per year by ten thousand years, nuclear plants are not 24 by 7 days by 365. They are more like 24 by 7 by 350; they are shut down for about a month for refueling every 18 months. Nuclear plants are also shut down unexpectedly due to events like hurricanes, earthquakes, floods.

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.

Nuclear Power: Present Tense

— Tweet — Nuclear Power: Accident in France Kills 1, Injures 4 — NPR, and the Associated Press report “An explosion at a nuclear waste facility in southern France killed one person and injured four on Monday… The Nuclear Safety Authority declared the accident “terminated” soon after the blast at a furnace in the Centraco site, in the southern Languedoc-Roussillon region, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the city of Avignon. One of the injured suffered severe burns.”

The DC Bureau reported “The workers were operating a high temperature industrial oven that burns low-level nuclear waste in a sealed building when the unit blew up. The worker who was killed was burned so badly his body was carbonized, according to officials.”

The French Nuclear Safety Authority, analogous to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or maybe Vichy, designated the accident as a 1 on a scale from 0 to 9.

While a death in an industrial accident is tragic, and while a worker could die as a result of injuries sustained falling off the nacelle of a wind turbine or a roof while installing or working on a solar array, it is probably impossible for a worker to get ‘Carbonized’ working on a wind turbine or solar farm. Continue reading →

Nuclear Power, Natural Disasters, and Security

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virginia Nuclear Reactors Shut Down Due To Earthquake

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 …

How long will the plants be offline?
Don’t we need the power those plants would generate during and in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake?

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!

Why the TVA Wants Nuclear Power

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 →

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant – Update

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.

Continue reading →

Indian Point 1 – A Zombie Nuclear Power Plant

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.

Indian Point 1

Brought online in August, 1962.
Shutdown in October, 1974.
Spent fuel is stored on site.
Scheduled to be closed in 2026.
Operated 13 years.
“Zombie” 52 years.

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

Rated Thermal Power: 3216 MW
Net Electrical Rating: 1032 MW
Water Requirements: 840,000 gallons per minute

Indian Point 3

Rated Thermal Power: 3188 MW
Net Electrical Rating: 1051MW
Water Requirements: 840,000 gallons per minute

(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

2 Gigawatts
Modality Nuclear Solar Wind
Cost (billions) $12 to $18 $8 to $12 $4 to $6
Fuel Yes No No
Waste Yes No No
Security Hole Huge No No

Nuclear Power and Russian Roulette

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!

Continue reading →

Telegraph Op-Ed urges Obama to build thorium reactors

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?”

Continue reading →

Why Cape Wind Still Matters

Tweet On May 25, 1961 President John Kennedy said, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” (Kennedy library and NASA)

Ten years ago, before Sept. 11, Jim Gordon and his team set out to build a small wind farm on the waters on which the young President, his wife, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews sailed. Size is relative. It’s small compared to a large coal or nuclear power complex. The wind farm will be composed of 130 turbines and produce up to 430 megawatts of power (here).

In 2010 Jim Gordon and Cape Wind, LLC, finally, got their permits to build the wind farm. For a variety of reasons it took longer for Cape Wind, LLC to get the permits to build the wind farm than it took this nation to land a man on the moon and bring him home safely. Had the wind farm been built by the winter of 2004, Cape Wind would have provided power during the bitter January of ’04, the heat wave of ’05, and every day, especially the coldest days of winter and the hottest days of summer – when the winds are strongest and New Englander’s electricity needs are highest.

It’s also clear, from reading Cape Wind, by Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb, that the alliance to “Save Our Sound,” created an anti-wind rogue’s gallery, a bipartisan coalition of moneyed special interests which led Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, Governor Willard Mitt Romney, R-MA, Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK, Representative Dan Young, R-AK, Sen. Trent Lott, R-MS, Sen. John Warner, R-VA, and very wealthy residents of Cape Cod, including Bill Koch, the late Richard Egan, Rachel “Bunny” Lambert Mellon (Sen. Warner’s ex-mother-in-law), professional environmentalist Robert F Kennedy, Jr. to obstruct the regulatory and the legislative processes and which slowed the development of Cape Wind and offshore wind farms off of the mid-Atlantic and elsewhere.

For them to oppose this project or say “I favor wind power, as long as it’s somewhere else,” was and remains cynical. Given that we have combat troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 described the mission in Iraq as a war for oil, was unpatriotic, perhaps traitorous.

Yet another bipartisan coalition rose up to challenge them and support Cape Wind: Ted Roosevelt, IV, who lives on the Cape, Rep. Jim Bass, R-NH, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, Matt Patrick, Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick, Greenpeace, unions, Fox News’ Sean Hannity. What these politicians have in common is an understanding of the values of energy independence and renewable energy.

Popular Logistics is a policy blog, not a politics blog. However, it’s worth noting that several political campaigns were won in Massachusetts by Democrats who supported Cape Wind, including Matt Patrick, the 5-term Democratic Representative of the 3rd District of Barnstable, Cape Cod, and Deval Patrick who started his 2006 Gubenatorial campaign in front of the Hull, MA, wind turbine.

Mitt Romney, who signed Ted Kennedy’s health care plan into law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (also known as Obamacare 1.0) appears to be running for President in 2012. He lost in the 2008 Primary to John McCain. Mr. Romney signed on to the Kennedy-Koch-Egan-Mellon anti-Cape Wind jihad. Americans favor wind power. Will they support Romney in 2012?

Scott “Mitt-Lite” Brown, said (here) “While I support the concept of wind power as an alternative source of energy, Nantucket Sound is a national treasure.” Massachusetts voters favor Cape Wind 70 to 30. Will they support Brown in his re-election campaign in 2012? The Statue of Liberty is a “National Treasure,” as is the Constitution. I last visited Cape Cod when I was 7. Nantucket Sound is not a “National Treasure.” Getting America off coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, moving to clean, renewable, sustainable energy means our children and grandchildren will enjoy our national treasures.

In their book Williams and Whitcomb suggest that Senator Kennedy may have realized that he had made a bad decision in opposing Cape Wind, but that for a variety of reasons he refused to back down. They may be right. While I think Kennedy was wrong, I can’t speak to whether he came to that understanding. As I noted on this blog, back in August, 2009, (here) President Obama said of Ted Kennedy,”His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives: in seniors who know new dignity; in families who know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including myself.”

Obama said “More equal and more just,” but he didn’t say “perfect.” America is not perfect. It is nation of men and women governed by the rule of law. The laws are not perfect, and neither are the men and women who make, enforce and interpret the laws.

Our energy policy is electricity flows when people flip a switch. Most of that electricity comes from burning fossil fuels and harnessing nuclear fission. We can pretend that the carbon we are pumping into the oceans and the atmosphere will have no effect, that we have unlimited supplies of fossil fuels, and uranium, that all the waste from coal mining, processing, transporting, and burning, and all the radiation leaks from nuclear plants (and radioactive waste from coal) are trivial or routine. Or we can get real. The choice is between coal, oil, methane, and nuclear, or wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. I choose wind, solar, tidal and geothermal; for myself, for my backyard, not just for people who are my equal in the eyes of the law, whether they have more or less money than me.

—

Index to the series that explores Offshore Wind and Politics:

Cape Wind, Leadership and Vision, here.
Why Cape Wind Still Matters, here.
Ted Roosevelt, IV, on Cape Wind (coming soon).

Nuclear Power and Cocaine

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 →