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.

Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/b6d3ce/nuclear_regulatory) has announced the addition of the "Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth" report to their offering. Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth, that provides an insight into the nuclear regulatory frameworks of the major nuclear power countries of the world. The study, which is an offering from the company's Energy Research Group, provides information about the major nuclear agencies and associations across the world, major nuclear treaties and protocols and comparison between different countries on the basis of selected parameters which define the presence of nuclear power in a country. The research also provides the nuclear policy, regulatory frameworks, key nuclear policies and regulations and also the major nuclear affiliations for major nuclear power generating countries in each of the five geographic regions. The report is built using the data and information sourced from proprietary databases, primary and secondary research and in-house analysis by a team of industry experts.

Carbon Emission Reduction Protocol to Play an Important Role in Nuclear Policies Formulation

Improved Nuclear Waste Disposal Policy Instrumental in Revitalizing the Nuclear Industry

The South African government released its official climate change response policy this week and while it contains many positives, many environmentalists, myself included, are very concerned about the fact that it contains a continued and increased commitment to nuclear energy. First, some of the good news. In the National Climate Change Response White Paper, the government reiterates its conviction, based on the research of the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, that climate change is happening, that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are the main causes and that there will be very severe consequences if the international community does not take decisive collective action to halt it. That’s great. There’s not denying that. What’s more, the South African government acknowledges that, while Africa as a continent has been a relatively minor contributor to climate change, South Africa itself is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG), largely as a result of its energy-intensive, fossil fuel powered economy. If nothing is done, the country’s emissions are projected to quadruple by 2050.

Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of all of South Africa’s GHG emissions and clearly this represents a major opportunity for future reductions. More than 90% of the country’s electricity is produced by coal-fired power stations. The French-built Koeberg plant outside Cape Town, which dates back to the Apartheid era, remains the country’s only commercial nuclear energy facility. It’s interesting to take a look at how a major new nuclear energy construction program has become an integral part of South Africa’s climate change policy. The ruling African National Congress, in power since the first democratic elections in 1994, used to be a staunch opponent of atomic energy. When the organization was in exile some of its underground operatives even sabotaged Koeberg while it was being built.

These days, however, the ANC government is a very strong proponent of nuclear energy. Critics believe that this is mainly the result of effective lobbying by the international nuclear industry and the country’s main industrial and mining electricity consumers. This week, Minister of Energy, Dipuo Peters confirmed that plans to construct 6 new nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 9 600 megawatts would cost something like R1 trillion (about $125 billion). The formal acceptance of nuclear energy into South Africa’s climate change policy can be traced back to a study of so-called long term mitigation scenarios (LTMS) which modeled various actions that could be taken to bring the country’s GHG emission under control in line with what is required internationally to prevent catastrophic climate change.

This year’s World Energy Outlook report has been published by the International Energy Agency, and says wealthy and industrializing countries are stuck on policies that threaten to lock in “an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system.”You can read worldwide coverage of the report here. Fiona Harvey of the Guardian has a piece on the report that focuses on the inexorable trajectories for carbon dioxide, driven by soaring energy demand in Asia.A variety of graphs and slides can be reviewed here:

According to the report, Russia will long remain the world’s leading producer of natural gas, but exploitation of shale deposits in the United States, and increasingly in China, will greatly boost production in those countries (which will be in second and third place for gas production in 2035).Last month, in an interview with James Kanter of The Times and International Herald Tribune, the new head of the energy agency, Maria van der Hoeven, discussed one point made in the report today — that concerns raised by the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi power plant could continue to dampen expansion of nuclear power and add to the challenge of avoiding a big accumulation of carbon dioxide, saying: “Such a reduction would certainly make it more difficult for the world to meet the goal of stabilizing the rise in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade.”

Short-term pressures on oil markets are easing with the economic slowdown and the expected return of Libyan supply. But the average oil price remains high, approaching $120/barrel (in year-2010 dollars) in 2035. Reliance grows on a small number of producers: the increase in output from Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is over 90% of the required growth in world oil output to 2035. If, between 2011 and 2015, investment in the MENA region runs one-third lower than the $100 billion per year required, consumers could face a near-term rise in the oil price to $150/barrel.Oil demand rises from 87 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2010 to 99 mb/d in 2035, with all the net growth coming from the transport sector in emerging economies. The passenger vehicle fleet doubles to almost 1.7 billion in 2035. Alternative technologies, such as hybrid and electric vehicles that use oil more efficiently or not at all, continue to advance but they take time to penetrate markets.

Now all radioactive debris and garbage can and will be burned and buried. The news headlines at various media outlets say "ashes that contain up to 100,000 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium", but if you read the news carefully, as long as there are "countermeasures" to prevent the leakage of radioactive cesium into the surrounding environment, the Ministry is prepared to allow the ashes with any amount of radioactive materials to be buried in regular waste final disposal facilities.

From NHK News (8/28/2011):

Regarding the ashes after burning the disaster debris and regular household garbage contaminated with radioactive materials, the Ministry of the Environment has decided on a policy that will allow the burial of ashes that exceed 8,000 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium, as long as there are countermeasures in place to prevent the leakage into the ground water.

A ‘smoking gun’ article is one that reveals a direct connection between a fossil fuel or alternative energy system promoter and a strongly antinuclear attitude. One of my guiding theories about energy is that a great deal of the discussion about safety, cost, and waste disposal is really a cover for a normal business activity of competing for market share.

This weekend, I came across a site called Culture Change that provides some strong support for my theory about the real source of strength for the antinuclear industry. According to the information at the bottom of the home page, Culture Change was founded by Sustainable Energy Institute (formerly Fossil Fuels Policy Action), a nonprofit organization.Jan Lundberg, who has led the organization and its predecessor organizations since 1988, grew up in a wealthy family with a father who was a popular and respected petroleum industry analyst.

As Oil Guru, Dan [Lundberg, my father] earned a regular Nightly Business Report commentary spot on the Public Broadcasting System television network in the early and mid-1980s. I helped edit or proof-read just about every one of those commentaries, and we delighted in the occasional opportunity to attack gasohol and ethanol for causing “agricultural strip mining” (as we did in the Lundberg Letter).

As a long time proponent of nuclear power, last week France announced that it will invest $1.4 billion in its nuclear energy program, diverging from contentious deliberation from neighboring states on nuclear energy policy after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan that damaged the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March. The President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, issued a strong commitment announcing the energy funding package by declaring there is “no alternative to nuclear energy today.” With the capital used to fund fourth generation nuclear power plant technology, focusing research development in nuclear safety, the announcement validates many decades of energy infrastructure and legacy expansion. France currently operates the second largest nuclear fleet in the world with 58 reactors, responsible for supplying more than 74 percent of domestic electricity demand supplied to the world’s fifth largest economy last year. At the end of last month, French uranium producer, Areva Group (EPA:AREVA), and Katko announced plans to increase production to 4,000 tonnes of uranium next year.  Katco is a joint venture for Areva, the world’s largest builder of nuclear power plants, and Kazatomprom the national operator for uranium prospecting, exploration and production for Kazakhstan.

German closure The pronouncement to maintain the nuclear prominence in France provides a strong counterweight to other countries in the region. Germany recently announced the phased shutdown of its 17 nuclear power stations by 2022.  Last week, Germany’s federal parliament voted overwhelmingly to close its remaining nine active plants according to a preset 11 year schedule. A Federal Network Agency, which oversees German energy markets, will decide by the end of September whether one of the eight nuclear plants already closed in recent months should be kept ready on a “cold reserve” basis, to facilitate the transition for national energy supply. The German commitment to an energy policy transition indicates that the national power mix towards renewable sources will have to double from its present range of 17 percent to an ambitious 35 percent. Subsidies for hydro electric and geothermal energy will increase; however, financial support for biomass, solar, and wind energy will be reduced. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she would prefer for utility suppliers not to make up any electrical shortfalls after 2022 by obtaining nuclear power from neighboring countries like France. Germany will require an expansive supergrid to effectively distribute electricity from the north to growing industrial urban centers like Munich, in the south. In order to execute this plan the new laws call for the addition of some 3,600 kilometers of high capacity power lines. Germany’s strategy will partially include the expansion of wind turbines on the North Sea, enabling some 25,000 megawatts’ worth of new offshore wind power which will have to be developed by 2030. Nuclear persistence in the United Kingdom Last month, the government in the United Kingdom maintained its strong commitment to nuclear energy, confirming a series of potential locations for new nuclear builds.  The national policy statements on energy said renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage “all have a part to play in delivering the United Kingdom’s decarbonisation objectives,” and confirmed eight sites around the country as suitable for building new nuclear stations by 2025. The statements, which are to be debated in Parliament, include a commitment for an additional 33,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity, while the government said more than $160 billion will be required to replace around 25 percent of the country’s generating capacity, due to close by 2020. The Scottish government has also softened its tough opposition to nuclear power, following recognition by the energy minister of a “rational case” to extend operations at Scotland’s two nuclear plants. Additional Eurozone participation In June, Italian voters rejected a government proposal to reintroduce nuclear power. The plan by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to restart Italy’s nuclear energy program abandoned during the 1980s, was rejected by 94 percent of voters in the referendum. Another regional stakeholder, the Swiss government has decided not to replace the four nuclear power plants that supply about 40 percent of the country’s electricity. The last of Switzerland’s power nuclear plants is expected to end production by 2034, leaving time for the country to develop alternative power sources. Although the country is home to the oldest nuclear reactor presently in operation, the Swiss Energy Foundation has stated an objective to work for “an ecological, equitable and sustainable energy policy”. Its “2000 watt society” promotes energy solutions which employ renewable energy resources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power.

No life extensions will be granted to Taipower's existing nuclear power plants in a newly announced nuclear energy policy that promises eventually to make the island 'nuclear-free'.

The policy, unveiled at a news conference, states that the Chinshan, Kuosheng and Maanshan nuclear power plants will not operate beyond their planned 40-year lives and that Taiwan's fourth nuclear power plant at Lungmen will not begin operations until all safety requirements have been met. Furthermore, the island's oldest two units will face early closure provided both Lungmen units are in commercial operation before 2016.

The new policy had been prepared "in keeping with the principles of no power rationing, maintenance of stable electricity prices and continued reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to meet international goals," said officials. They also noted that the new policy is in line with Article 23 of the Basic Environment Act, which directs the government to make plans that will eventually see Taiwan become nuclear-free. The two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWR) under construction at Lungmen would only be allowed to start up after passing strict safety evaluations both by the government and international nuclear safety organisations. Additional improvements are being carried out at the plant in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis earlier this year, and an operation date is to be announced early in 2012.

LONDON, UK, November 9, 2011 (ENS) - Unless there is a "bold change of policy direction," the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system, the International Energy Agency warned at the launch of its 2011 World Energy Outlook today in London. The report says there is still time to act, but despite steps in the right direction the door of opportunity is closing

The agency's warning comes at a critical time in international climate change negotiations, as governments prepare for the annual UN climate summit in Durban, South Africa, from November 28.

international agreement whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door will be closed forever," IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol warned today. "Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy," said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. "Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies," she said.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2011-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On June 09, 2011, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board affirmed their Recommendation 2011-1, concerning Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, to the Department of Energy. In accordance with section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), The following represents the Secretary of Energy's response to the recommendation.

As the Board notes in the introduction to this Recommendation, DOE committed itself to establishing and maintaining a strong nuclear safety culture almost 20 years ago through Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy. This commitment was reiterated and confirmed in February 2011, in DOE Policy 420.1, Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy. We agree with the Board's position that establishment of a strict safety culture must be a fundamental principle throughout the DOE complex, and we are in unqualified agreement with the Board that the WTP mission is essential to protect the health and safety of the public, our workers, and the environment from radioactive wastes in aging storage tanks at Hanford.

A former top diplomat vying to become the next prime minister proposed Saturday that Japan stop building new nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster and phase out atomic energy over 40 years.Former Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara took the clearest stand against nuclear power at a news conference where five ruling Democratic party members outlined their policy goals in their campaign to replace Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who announced Friday he is stepping down.

The ruling party will vote Monday to pick a new party chief, who will then become prime minister — Japan's sixth in five years.Nuclear energy is hot topic in Japan following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, damaged by the March 11 tsunami. Some 100,000 people have been evacuated from around the plant, and government officials have warned that accumulated radiation in some spots may keep areas off limits for the foreseeable future.

The leadership contest is emerging as a close race between Maehara, a youthful defense expert and the public's top choice, and Economy Minister Banri Kaieda, who secured the backing of the ruling party's behind-the-scenes powerbroker, Ichiro Ozawa.

A new government energy panel, with nearly half of member experts critical of nuclear power generation, began discussing Monday revising Japan's national energy policy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis. The panel's deliberations are important as they will "probe a road Japan will take over the next 100 or 200 years," Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano told the first meeting of the group.

The panel, newly created under the energy advisory committee of the industry ministry, is tasked with reviewing Japan's basic energy plan that calls for greater reliance on nuclear energy, revised just last year. It envisages nuclear power accounting for 53 percent of all electricity generated in Japan by 2030 from about 30 percent before the March 11 disaster. With around 10 of the 25 panel members opposing nuclear power generation, opinions both for and against nuclear energy were presented during the panel meeting. It differed from similar meetings in the past. A previous panel contained few opponents of nuclear energy, with the ministry playing an important role in promoting nuclear power generation. The panel, headed by Nippon Steel Corp. Chairman Akio Mimura, plans to compile a new energy plan by around next summer.

Edano asked panel members to promote discussions to sufficiently explore how the nation's energy policy should be, without being constrained by the current energy situation, saying, "Since the (Fukushima) accident, citizens' opinions and their trust on nuclear power have changed substantially." Since the start of the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, the government has shifted its stance to reducing the nation's reliance on nuclear power. The panel experts differ on how quickly to reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power, as well as ways to introduce renewable energy.

Global growth in the civilian nuclear energy sector represents an annual trade market estimated at $500 billion to $740 billion over the next 10 years.  As new nations consider nuclear energy technology to produce low-carbon electricity, the United States should take a leadership role that will enhance the safety and nuclear nonproliferation regimes globally, while creating tens of thousands of new American jobs. The United States is the world leader in safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants, with an average capacity factor of 90 percent or higher in each of the past 10 years.  When ranked by 36-month unit capability factor, the United States has the top three best performing nuclear reactors in the world, seven of the top 10, and 16 of the top 20.  Nuclear energy facilities produce electricity in 31 states and have attained a four-fold improvement in safety during the past 20 years.  This underpinning in safety and reliability is one reason why America generates more electricity from nuclear energy than the next two largest nuclear programs combined.

Bilateral agreements on nuclear energy cooperation are vital to advancing global nonproliferation and safety goals as well as America’s interests in global nuclear energy trade.  A 123 agreement, named after section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, establishes an accord for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear energy trade between the United States and other nations.  The agreement contains valuable nonproliferation controls and commitments.  One of the most significant elements of U.S. agreements is approval granted by our government as to how other countries process uranium fuel after it is used in a commercial reactor.  Under U.S. agreements, these nations cannot reprocess the fuel—chemically separating the uranium and plutonium—without U.S. notification and consent to do so.  This is a significant safeguard against the potential misuse of low-enriched uranium from the commercial sector.

Several public policy considerations must be weighed in evaluating the impact of 123 agreements, including those related to national security, economic development, energy production, and environmental protection. In the competitive global marketplace for commercial nuclear technology, inconsistent bilateral agreements will have unintended consequences for U.S. suppliers.  Imposing overly restrictive commercial restrictions or conditions in U.S. 123 agreements that are not matched by other nations’ bilateral agreements may significantly bias the country against selecting U.S.-based suppliers, even if the agreements don’t have malicious intentions. 

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda pledged Sept. 13 to come up with a new basic energy policy by next summer to reduce the nation's dependence on nuclear energy. Noda, making his first policy speech, said: "It is unproductive to perceive energy policy as a confrontation between those who call for a move away from nuclear energy and those who promote nuclear energy."

He also indicated he would allow a resumption of operations at nuclear reactors that were shut down for periodic inspections as long as the safety of the reactors has been confirmed. Noda also said an advisory panel, bringing together representatives of business, the bureaucracy and academia, would be in place by the end of the year to help compile a strategy for the revitalization of Japan as well as other key policy areas.

Noda's address was to the extraordinary Diet session that convened Sept. 13 and will last only four days. Opposition parties bristled at the shortness of the session. And in an unusual move, a vote had to be taken in the Lower House plenary session to settle the duration of the session.

Hiroaki Koide, an assistant professor at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute (KURRI), is someone who has made one of the strongest impressions on me among the experts I've spoken to about the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster. The public's views toward Koide have changed by the minute. He went from first being considered a nuclear "maverick" to a "pioneer" and finally to "one polemicist from the anti-nuclear camp." His ever-changing reputation has been symbolic of Japan's wavering between the promotion of nuclear energy and independence from it.

Last week, a government insider I've known for years wondered aloud whether they couldn't "drag someone like Koide" into the process of drawing up the government's new energy policy.

When I asked Koide about this, however, he responded: "I'm completely disillusioned with politics. No matter what committees are set up, nothing's going to change while politics continues to be carried out the way it is now. I won't accept a position from the government. When it comes to one-on-one public debates, however, I'm willing to go anywhere to participate."

Testimony by Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama of Tokyo University continues. He goes back to Minami Soma City where his Radioisotope Center has been helping to decontaminate.We at the Radioisotope Center of Tokyo University have been helping to decontaminate Minami-Soma City, sending about 4 people at a time and doing decontamination work for the length of 700km per week.Again, what's happening to Minami-Soma clearly shows that 20 or 30 kilometer radius [from the nuke plant] doesn't make any sense at all. You have to measure in more detail like measuring each nursery school.

Right now, from the 20 to 30 kilometer radius area, 1,700 school children are put on the buses to go to school. Actually in Minami-Soma, the center of the city is located near the ocean, and 70% of the schools have relatively low level of radiation. Yet, children are forced to get on the school buses to go all the way to schools near Iitate-mura [where radiation is higher], spending 1 million yen everyday for the busing.

I strongly demand that this situation be terminated as soon as possible.What's most problematic is the government's policy that they will compensate the residents for the moving cost only if their areas are designated as official evacuation zones. In a recent committee held at the House of Councilors [Upper House], President Shimizu of TEPCO and Mr. Kaieda, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry answered that way. I ask you to separate the two immediately - compensation criteria issue and children's safety issue.

There are battles being fought on two fronts in the five months since a massive earthquake and tsunami damaged the Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan. On one front, there is the fight to repair the plant, operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and to contain the extent of contamination caused by the damage. On the other is the public’s fight to extract information from the Japanese government, TEPCO and nuclear experts worldwide.

The latter battle has yielded serious official humiliation, resulting high-profile resignations, scandals, and promises of reform in Japan’s energy industry whereas the latter has so far resulted in a storm of anger and mistrust. Even most academic nuclear experts, seen by many as the middle ground between the anti-nuclear activists and nuclear lobby itself, were reluctant to say what was happening: That in Fukushima, a community of farms, schools and fishing ports, was experiencing a full-tilt meltdown, and that, as Al Jazeera reported in June, that the accident had most likely caused more radioactive contamination than Chernobyl

As recently as early August, those seeking information on the real extent of the damage at the Daiichi plant and on the extent of radioactive contamination have mostly been reassured by the nuclear community that there’s no need to worry.

On Tuesday, July 12, the Energy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science will hold a hearing to examine whether it would be economical for the U.S. to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and what the potential cost implications are for the nuclear power industry and for the Federal Government. This hearing is a follow-up to the June 16 Energy Subcommittee hearing that examined the status of reprocessing technologies and the impact reprocessing would have on energy efficiency, nuclear waste management, and the potential for proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear materials.

Dr. Richard K. Lester is the Director of the Industrial Performance Center and a Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He co-authored a 2003 study entitled The Future of Nuclear Power. Dr. Donald W. Jones is Vice President of Marketing and Senior Economist at RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois. He co-directed a 2004 study entitled The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Dr. Steve Fetter is the Dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. He co-authored a 2005 paper entitled The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Mr. Marvin Fertel is the Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute.

3. Overarching Questions  Under what conditions would reprocessing be economically competitive, compared to both nuclear power that does not include fuel reprocessing, and other sources of electric power? What major assumptions underlie these analyses?  What government subsidies might be necessary to introduce a more advanced nuclear fuel cycle (that includes reprocessing, recycling, and transmutation—''burning'' the most radioactive waste products in an advanced reactor) in the U.S.?