Group items tagged

Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary. The Problem

One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio

The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.

Nuclear supporters got some positive news from Europe last week. Although Germany has pulled its oldest plants out of operation and countries across the continent continue to debate the future of the industry in light of the Japanese reactor crisis, the European Parliament has excluded a moratorium on new reactors from nuclear safety legislation.

A construction moratorium failed in a vote Thursday, with 300 voting against the measure, 264 for it and 61 abstaining, according to Bulgarian newspaper Novinite

The moratorium would have been in effect at least until “stress tests” were conducted. The tests, approved earlier, will assess nuclear plants’ ability to withstand natural and man-made disasters. While some legislators argued the tests should be overseen at the European-Union level, the legislation directs regulators in individual EU countries to carry them out.

The nuclear phase-out until 2022, which the government proposed in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, and the accelerated transition into an age of renewable energy supply can almost go ahead as planned. The Bundesrat (Federal Council)  followed the Bundestag’s (Federal Parliament’s) vote of 1 July 2011 and approved the energy legislative package in its last session before the summer break. However, the Energy-Efficient Renovations of Residential Buildings Act was rejected. Hence, the laws below can enter into force after having been signed by the Federal President Christian Wulff and following promulgation in the Federal Law Gazette: 13th amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG) – the actual nuclear energy exit law; Act Amending the Legal Framework for the Promotion of the Electricity Generation from Renewable Energy Sources (Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Rechtsrahmens für die Förderung der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien), which most importantly contains amendments of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) in Article 1; Act Amending Energy Law related Provisions (Gesetz zur Neuregelung energiewirtschaftsrechtlicher Vorschriften), most importantly of the German Energy Act (EnWG); Act on Measures Accelerating the Expansion of the Electricity Grids (Gesetz über Maßnahmen zur Beschleunigung des Netzausbaus Elektrizitätsnetze), which most importantly includes a new Grid Expansion Acceleration Act (NABEG) in Article 1, but also amends other laws; Act Amending the Energy and Climate Fund Act (Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes zur Errichtung eines Sondervermögens “Energie- und Klimafonds – EKFG -ÄndG); Act Strenghtening Climate-Friendly Measures in Towns and Municipalities (Gesetz zur Stärkung der klimagerechten Entwicklung in den Städten und Gemeinden); First Act Amending Shipping Laws (Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung schifffahrtsrechtlicher Vorschriften). Approval by the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the federal states, had been uncertain for many of the bills contained in the package. The CDU/CSU/FDP coalition government does not hold a majority in the Bundesrat. While support for the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG) in the Bundesrat could be expected after the clear majority that the bill received in the Bundestag’s vote, this was not the case for many the other bills. To be able to decide before the summer break, the Bundesrat had shortened the consultation period for the bills. Still the expert committees of the Bundesrat prepared numerous recommendations to amend the bills.

The main trade group for the nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, spent $540,000 in the third quarter lobbying federal officials about financial support for new reactors, safety regulations and other issues, according to a disclosure report.That's 30 percent more than the $415,000 the trade group spent in the third quarter of last year and 7 percent less than the $580,000 it spent in the second quarter of 2011.

NEI, based in Washington, lobbied the government on measures designed to ensure the nation's 104 commercial reactors can withstand natural disasters, cyber attacks, and on a proposal that would require the president to issue guidance on a federal response to a large-scale nuclear disaster. It also lobbied on a measure that would require nuclear operators to transfer radioactive spent nuclear fuel from cooling pools inside or near reactor cores to dry casks further from the reactors.

NEI also lobbied the government over environmental regulations. Congress is considering several measures that would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases or delay rules. Nuclear power generation produces no greenhouse gases, while the other two major fuels for electric generation, coal and natural gas, do so. A 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Democrats, Republicans, industry leaders and even the EPA agree separate legislation would be preferable, but Congress has been unable to agree on new rules.NEI lobbied for funds for research and development for smaller, cheaper reactors and other nuclear technologies, and also on a measure that would create an export assistance fund that would promote the export of clean energy technologies.

As the full cost of the Fukushima nuclear accident continues to climb—Japanese officials now peg it at $64 billion or more—nuclear power’s future is literally headed south. Developed countries are slowing or shuttering their nuclear-power programs, while states to their south, in the world’s hotspots (think the Middle East and Far East), are pushing to build reactors of their own. Normally, this would lead to even more of a focus on nuclear safety and nonproliferation. Yet, given how nuclear-reactor sales have imploded in the world’s advanced economies, both these points have been trumped by nuclear supplier states’ desires to corner what reactor markets remain.

This spring, Germany permanently shut down eight of its reactors and pledged to shutter the rest by 2022. Shortly thereafter, the Italians voted overwhelmingly to keep their country nonnuclear. Switzerland and Spain followed suit, banning the construction of any new reactors. Then Japan’s prime minister killed his country’s plans to expand its reactor fleet, pledging to reduce Japan’s reliance on nuclear power dramatically. Taiwan’s president did the same. Now Mexico is sidelining construction of 10 reactors in favor of developing natural-gas-fired plants, and Belgium is toying with phasing its nuclear plants out, perhaps as early as 2015.

China—nuclear power’s largest prospective market—suspended approvals of new reactor construction while conducting a lengthy nuclear-safety review. Chinese nuclear-capacity projections for the year 2020 subsequently tumbled by as much as 30 percent. A key bottleneck is the lack of trained nuclear technicians: to support China’s stated nuclear-capacity objectives, Beijing needs to graduate 6,000 nuclear experts a year. Instead, its schools are barely generating 600.

Translation of the Dec. 15, 2011 Nature Magazine article by former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and legislator Tomoyuki Taira — both members of  by EX-SKF (Certain expressions may be off, as article was translated English to Japanese and then back to English) [Emphasis Added]: [Subheading:] Possibility of Nuclear Explosion We need to answer the question of what caused the series of explosions at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Initially, they were reported as hydrogen explosions [...] [T]his is not conclusive. Other possibilities exist, and they are nuclear explosions and gas explosions other than hydrogen gas. [...]

From two observed facts, we believe a nuclear explosion is more likely. First, several transuranic elements have been detected several tens of kilometers away from the plant. Second, the steel trusses in the upper part of the reactor building of Reactor 3 are twisted as if they had been melted.

According to the reports by the Ministry of Education and Science, curium-242 (242Cm) has been detected at a location 3 kilometers from the plant, and plutonium-238 (238Pu) has been detected at a location 45 kilometers from the plant. [...] 242Cm’s half life is short (about 163 days), and the deposition of 238Pu around the plant is far greater than normal, leading the Ministry of Education and Science to conclude these were emitted from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. If that’s the case, pieces of broken spent nuclear fuel rods may have been scattered around the plant, and it is extremely dangerous.

The Tennessee Valley Authority on Thursday issued a draft of its Integrated Resource Plan, a comprehensive study that will help guide efforts to meet regional electricity needs over the next 20 years. Titled "TVA's Environmental and Energy Future," the study analyzes potential combinations of economic and regulatory trends in the coming years and provides recommendations for addressing them. The plan's main purpose is to help TVA meet the region's future energy challenges in ways that maintain reliable power supplies, competitive prices, improved environmental performance and continued financial strength.

TVA's yearlong analysis included input from numerous stakeholders including state agencies, power distributors, environmental groups, universities and the general public. The study yielded several likely probabilities for TVA, including: Nuclear expansion will continue, with the potential to eventually overtake coal as the leading electricity source; TVA may idle a portion of its coal generation fleet, as coal units become older and less economical under tighter regulations; Energy efficiency and demand response, as well as renewable generation, will play an increasing role in future resource options; Natural gas capacity additions will be a viable resource option and a key source of generation flexibility for TVA; The intensity of TVA's carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions will continue to decrease.

Using the study's methodology, TVA examined seven possible long-term scenarios for the next two decades, based on factors such as economic growth, inflation, fuel prices and the regulatory environment. They are: Dramatic economic recovery Environmental focus becoming a greater national priority Prolonged economic malaise Introduction of game-changing energy-related technology Greater U.S. energy independence Carbon regulation creating an economic downturn Current approach/baseline

My views on the approach this Administration has chosen to take when it comes to terminating Yucca Mountain and setting the mission of the Blue Ribbon Commission are well known.  The Commission was formed so that the Obama Administration could put off decisions about nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel until after November, while at the same time illegally acting to shut down the national repository as quickly as possible

Congressman Doc Hastings’ (WA-04) Legislative Director presented his testimony to members of the Blue Ribbon Commission in the Tri-Cities today.  A complete copy of his testimony is attached below.

The Department of Energy on Friday issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on low-level radioactive waste disposal, with public meetings set for April and May in cities near potential waste sites in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico and South Carolina. The EIS addresses greater-than-class-C (GTCC) low-level-radioactive waste (LLRW) as DOE considers new and existing storage facilities. GTCC waste comes from power plants, medical treatments, medical diagnostics and oil and gas exploration, as well as other industrial processes. The EIS and waste sites do not involve high-level waste like spent fuel.

In a release, DOE estimates current GTCC and GTCC-like LLRW in storage at 1,100 cubic meters. The EIS estimates an additional 175 cubic meters of waste will be generated each year over the next six decades. In looking for places to store that waste, the EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of using both new and existing waste facilities. Disposal methods evaluated include deep geological repository, intermediate depth boreholes, enhanced near-surface trenches and above-grade vaults

“disposal locations analyzed include the Hanford Site in Washington; Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho; the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) and the WIPP vicinity in New Mexico; the Nevada National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site) in Nevada; and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The Draft EIS also evaluates generic commercial disposal sites in four regions of the U.S., as well as a no action alternative.”

Some 100,000 people are still living as evacuees away from their homes in the wake of the severe accidents at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Kyodo News has reported that some 17,000 children in Fukushima Prefecture have changed schools or kindergartens because of radiation fears. Of these children, some 8,000 moved out of the prefecture.

Given this situation, it is imperative that the central government vigorously push the work of decontaminating areas contaminated with radioactive substances released from the nuclear power reactors. The central and local governments also should provide psychological care to both children who moved to new schools or kindergartens and children who have remained at their schools and kindergartens.

The Diet is expected to soon enact a special law under which the central government will be responsible for disposing of highly radioactive rubble and sludge, and decontaminating radioactive soil. In some cases, the central and local governments will carry out decontamination work together. The cost will be shouldered by Tepco.

The main trade group for the nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, spent $580,000 in the first quarter lobbying federal officials about financial support for new reactors, safety regulations and other issues, according to a disclosure report. That's 32 percent more than the $440,000 the trade group spent in the second quarter of last year and 6 percent more than the $545,000 it spent in the first quarter of 2011. The nuclear crisis in Japan last March brought about by the earthquake and tsunami led to calls for tighter safety regulations for nuclear plants in the United States.

NEI, based in Washington, lobbied the government on measures designed to ensure the nation's 104 commercial reactors can withstand natural disasters. It also lobbied on a measure that would require nuclear operators to transfer radioactive spent nuclear fuel from cooling pools inside or near reactor cores to dry casks further from the reactors. In the Japanese nuclear accident, crowded pools of spent nuclear fuel overheated when the nuclear station's cooling power was knocked out. NEI also lobbied the government over environmental regulations. Congress is considering measures that would delay new clean air and clean water rules and curb the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to issue rules by forcing the EPA to factor in the cost of their implementation in addition to medical and scientific evidence.

There also are several measures under consideration that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Nuclear power generation produces no greenhouse gases and none of the airborne toxins such as mercury that EPA clean air rules target. But many nuclear plants use outdated cooling systems that consume enormous amounts of water. Replacing those cooling systems with newer systems that use less water is expensive. NEI also lobbied for funds for research and development for smaller, cheaper reactors and other nuclear technologies.

The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee included extensive language in their FY 2012 committee report about nuclear energy.  They wrote of being “extremely concerned that the United States continues to accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or dispose of it safely, and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability by 2020,” called for the development of “consolidated regional storage facilities,” and mandated research on dry cask storage, advanced fuel cycle options, and disposal in geological media.  The appropriators provided no funding for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program or Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.  In a separate section, they direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study on the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and discuss beyond design-basis events and mitigating impacts of earthquakes. Language from the committee report 112-75 follows, with page number references to the pdf version of this document.

Nuclear Energy The FY 2011 appropriation was $732.1 million The FY 2012 administration request was $754.0 million The FY 2012 House-passed bill provides $733.6 million, an increase of $1.5 million or 0.2 percent from the current budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill provides $583.8 million, a decline of $148.3 million or 20.3 percent.

“The Committee has provided more than $500,000,000 in prior years toward the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program.  Although the program has experienced some successes, particularly in the advanced research and development of TRISO [tristructural-isotropic] fuel, the Committee is frustrated with the lack of progress and failure to resolve the upfront cost-share issue to allocate the risk between industry and the Federal Government. Although the Committee has provided sufficient time for these issues to be resolved, the program has stalled. Recognizing funding constraints, the Committee cannot support continuing the program in its current form. The Committee provides no funding to continue the existing NGNP program, but rather allows the Department to continue high-value, priority research and development activities for high-temperature reactors, in cooperation with industry, that were included in the NGNP program.”

On August 26, 2011, Prime Minister Kan Naoto resigned from office after a tempestuous fifteen months in power. Since May 2011 a virtual lynch mob egged on by the media bayed for his resignation. Kan’s ouster became an obsession of the nation’s powerbrokers. This article examines why, in the midst of an unprecedented cascade of disasters, natural and nuclear, the Kan problem trumped all others.

The fiercely partisan politics of the complex Tōhoku catastrophe has slowed action on recovery and discredited politicians of all political stripes. The public views Diet members with growing contempt because too many politicians seem to have prioritized petty party politics over reconstruction and safety of the victims. In early June 2011, while nearly 100,000 evacuees languished in evacuation centers, and with relatively little progress towards recovery in many battered coastal communities or controlling the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi, the Diet devoted its energy to a no-confidence motion to oust Prime Minister Kan Naoto. Naturally, the public was dismayed by this unproductive vendetta at a time when the nation was looking for substantial emergency measures. Polls taken at the time of the no-confidence motion showed that a vast majority of Japanese did not think ousting Kan was a pressing priority even though he was unpopular. In the court of public opinion, the verdict on national politicians is dereliction of duty.

On the eve of 3/11, PM Kan looked to be on his way out as scandals sullied his administration and he plunged in public opinion polls. In the wake of the multiple disasters, Kan enjoyed a brief bounce in public support and a lull in the escalating vilification by the media and political opponents in the Diet. Within a month, however, this fragile solidarity unraveled and it was back to politics as usual featuring internecine sniping by the Ozawa Ichiro wing of Kan’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and shrill criticism coupled with stonewalling of many legislative initiatives by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

nergySolutions is once again asking for the State of Utah’s permission to accept another vagrant bunch of radioactive waste. It plans to blend, or dilute, Class B and Class C waste with less radioactive waste until it just meets the Class A waste levels its license allows at its Clive disposal site. Think of it as kind of a radioactive smoothie.

This blended waste is a unique waste stream: something unforeseen and unknown to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when it developed its low-level waste regulations in 1981. While the commission is currently trying to develop coherent new guidance on this, its rules state that it is only OK to intentionally mix wastes “as long as the classification is not altered.” Utah does not have such a regulation.

At present there are no disposal sites that accept Classes B and C low level waste, but that will change in about a month when a Texas disposal site opens and starts accepting these materials, without any of the hazards incurred in actually putting these things in the blender. The public understands how corporations often use regulatory loopholes to their own benefit.

A government panel reviewing radiation limits for the general public will propose that the government increase the current 1 millisievert annual exposure level to an interim limit between 1 and 20 millisieverts, panel sources said Wednesday.

The New York Times published an article on Sunday, June 26, 2011 titled Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush. The article quotes a number of emails from natural gas industry insiders, financial analysts that cover the gas industry and skeptical geologists to produce a number of questions about the long term viability of an increasing dependence on cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing. The message is that the gas industry has been engaging in hyperbole regarding its capacity to expand production at current prices to meet market demands.

the people quoted in the NY Times article do not agree that the technique magically produces low cost gas in unprecedented abundance.

“Our engineers here project these wells out to 20-30 years of production and in my mind that has yet to be proven as viable,” wrote a geologist at Chesapeake in a March 17 e-mail to a federal energy analyst. “In fact I’m quite skeptical of it myself when you see the % decline in the first year of production.”

Deregulate The AtomHistory of the Antinuclear Movement, Part 2b var addthis_product = 'wpp-258'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":false}; The different and more diffuse class composition of the European antinuclear movement found visible expression in the tactics of the activists and the police, which were much more belligerent than in America. In Europe, antinuclear protesters carried out acts of sabotage against power-lines, railroad lines, construction sites, factories supplying nuclear plants, and installations of utility companies including bombs placed near nuclear construction sites or plants. Marches and rallies attracting upward of 50,000 were commonplace. Police responded physically against demonstrators, using tear gas, clubs, dogs, even grenades, causing hundreds of injured and even death (as in the case of Malville). Civil war-like street blockades, dozens of miles away from the demonstration-sites and at national borders were set up to block demonstrators. Compared to the small showings and relatively peaceful actions in North America, the European state of affairs was much more dynamic. The movement against the nuclear plants was one of the biggest mass movements of the 1970s and 80s in Germany. After a slowdown since, it has reappeared now like a phoenix from the ashes, The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was a pivotal event for Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, following the event, the Green Party strived for the immediate shut-down of all nuclear facilities. The SPD pushed for a nuclear phase-out within ten years. Länder governments, municipalities, parties and trade unions explored the question of whether the use of nuclear power technology was reasonable and sensible for the future.

May 1986 clashes between anti-nuclear protesters and West German police became common. More than 400 people were injured in mid-May at the site of a nuclear-waste reprocessing plant being built near Wackersdorf. Police used water cannons and dropped tear-gas grenades from helicopters to subdue protesters armed with slingshots, crowbars and Molotov cocktails. Starting from 1995, when the first transports of nuclear waste to Gorleben took place, there was a slow, but continuous new growth of resistance, with demonstrations and blockades of the railway. In 2002, the “Act on the structured phase-out of the utilization of nuclear energy for the commercial generation of electricity” took effect, following a drawn-out political debate and lengthy negotiations with nuclear power plant operators. The act legislated for the shut-down of all German nuclear plants by 2021

The Illinois Green Party wants people to be more aware of the dangers of nuclear energy. Director of Nuclear Energy Information Service Chicago Dave Kraft says residents and lawmakers should be concerned because Illinois has four reactors the same type and vintage as the ones in Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster. Kraft said today was a chance to raise awareness in political circles about the state of nuclear energy in Illinois and hopefully inspire legislators to take a hard look at safety at our nuclear reactors.

He said it's also time to consider alternative sources of energy and cut our dependence on nuclear energy. "Nuclear has to be phased out in Illinois. It's a huge portion of the state's electricity now. So, a planned methodical phase out is much preferable to having to do it under emergency situations like they are in Japan." Kraft says Illinois is moving in the right direction with laws in place to cut back use of electrical energy.

Almost three-quarters of Japanese people who voted in a poll would like to see nuclear power phased out of Japan

A Japanese government spokesman admitted voters could have been influenced by the rejection of atomic power in Italy’s referendum on Monday.

“The situation of foreign nations could cause a certain level of influence not just over nuclear issue but also over various domestic policies.”