Pulling the Plug on Callaway II

The first of the new 26 nuclear power, the Callaway II, was suspended indefinitely last Thursday because the company financing it, AmerenUE, couldn’t secure financial stability from the state of Missouri before it began construction. According to KOMU and the New York Times, what really killed the plant was that the energy company couldn’t raise the electricity rates now to help pay for construction because of a law passed in 1976. AmerenUE had placed a bill in congress to overrule the law but withdrew it because it wouldn’t cover the cost of the new plant. The plant would have cost $6-$8 billion dollars and would have been the largest development in Missouri history. In this sort of economic turmoil, it’s no wonder that a project as big as this would be put on hold. On average, a new power plant costs $3600 to $4000 per installed kW. Companies have been financing this by charging customers 30 cents per watt the first thirteen years and then18 cents per watt for the remaining lifetime of the plant (the average resident pays about 10 cents/kWh.)

In the end though, it sounds like it’s all about politics. Those opposed to the bill thought it would raise the energy prices too much and they would be passing ‘the risk of a failed construction project onto the customer’ (Powering Down, 2009). The Sierra Club, a group strongly opposed the bill, said they will oppose any new proposals for power plants in Missouri. They would rather meet Missouri’s energy demands with renewable sources such as wind or solar. Ginger Harris, chair of the executive committee of the Missouri Sierra Club, thinks that if the money for the Callaway II project was put towards solar, that Missouri could reach a lot more customers and create a lot more jobs. But AmerenUE argues that there isn’t enough wind or solar in Missouri to meet the rising energy demands. Ameren UE Communications Executive Mike Cleary says that the only option the company was considering was nuclear, coal or natural gas. Now that nuclear is off the table, the only alternatives are energy sources that are more pollutant, exactly the kind of things that the Sierra Club hoped to avoid.

http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/d5ce5427-80ce-0971-018f-0c9661677d34
http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/11/How-Much-Will-New-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Cost/
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/a-setback-in-the-nuclear-renaissance/#more-6883

No oil but ideas...

Following the post of ncristea, I would like to talk also about nuclear. Coming from France, a country where 80% of its electricity is produced by nuclear, I grew up with it, and nuclear seems normal and npeople are not scared of nuclear in France. More than 30 years ago, when the first oil crisis happened, oil prices were multiplied by four, unemployment appeared and raised, inflation arrived…

The French government then decided to make an important turn in its energy policy and developed nuclear energy over the next few years. To make accept nuclear and its dangers by the population, an advertising campaign was done by the government saying: “In France, we don’t have oil, but we have ideas!” which became really popular.

Today, 80% of our electricity comes from nuclear. There are 59 reactors all of them controlled by the same company EDF (Electricity of France) whereas there are more than 100 nuclear reactors in the US which made it leader for the number of reactors. As ncristea said and also Meredith in one of the first posts, the most important problems about nuclear power are nuclear wastes and how to deal with them.

In France, the third generation of nuclear reactors is being built in Flamanville [1], and the French President Nicolas Sarkozy agreed recently to the construction of another center. This generation of reactor does not produce any CO2 emission and Flamanville reactors will be in operation in 2012, and the first reactors should stop around 2020. 10 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the USA are already thinking to the fourth generation [2] which could be commissioned between 2040 and 2405.

According to EDF website [3], there are two kinds of nuclear wastes:

- “Short-lived waste loses half of its radioactivity every thirty years. It comes from the operation, maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear power plants. It accounts for 90% of total radioactive waste inventory (based on the ANDRA=National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management inventory) and contain 0.1% of total radioactivity. This waste includes filters, resins, valves, plastic film and fabric, etc.

- Long-lived waste loses its radioactivity over periods of more than 30 years. It comes from spent fuel processing activities. It accounts for 10% of total radioactive waste inventory and contain 99.9% of total radioactivity.”

As (for the moment, this is going to change) only one company in France owns all the nuclear reactors, it is simpler to apply the same conditions for all of them. Over 20 years, EDF divided by 3 the amount of short-lived waste. They do the appropriate conditioning for each type of waste in order to avoid the spread of radioactivity. Then, at the difference of the US, “once waste is conditioned, it is placed in temporary storage at secured facilities” [4]. They also have made plans for future and for not letting future generations paying for nuclear waste storage. The Government Accounting Office has been monitoring EDF which has made some plans for the funding of waste management. That means that in France, the price of kWh takes into account the cost of long-lived waste management and also the cost of plant decommissioning.

Nuclear wastes in France are stored in different places. This all very monitored by four different agencies to prevent any risk and to make sure that EDF does its job well. Storing is not solving the problem, but it seems that apart trying to minimize waste quantities at the source and recycle the most possible plutonium and depleted uranium, there will still be nuclear wastes. I don’t think that any miracle solutions could be found to avoid nuclear wastes. I do appreciate nuclear advantages (nearly zero CO2 emission when taking into account the whole life cycle, less danger for health of the neighbor population…). I agreed that we need also more renewable energies (solar, wind, biomass…), but I don’t think that the energy future can be done without nuclear power… (but of course I might not be really objective as this is the main source of electricity in my country!)

[1]http://energy.edf.com/edf-fr-accueil/edf-and-power-generation/nuclear-power/the-future-of-nuclear-power/epr-y-flamanville-3/why-epr-technology-105730.html

[2]http://energy.edf.com/edf-fr-accueil/edf-and-power-generation/nuclear-power/the-future-of-nuclear-power/4th-generation-122324.html

[3]http://energy.edf.com/edf-fr-accueil/edf-and-power-generation/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/what-exactly-is-nuclear-waste-122280.html

[4]http://energy.edf.com/edf-fr-accueil/edf-and-power-generation/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/edf-a-responsible-player-122281.html

Weapons of Mass Distraction: Debunking the Case for Electricity Generation in Iran

My research paper focused on the economic merits of nuclear electricity generation in Iran. Regardless of Iran's true motives, nuclear electricity generation makes little sense for Iran.

Although Iran does have electricity sector problems, these troubles stem from bad policies, not choice of primary energy source. Because most of Iran's electricity is generated by natural gas-fired power plants, massive natural gas subsidies have led to unabated consumption and the inability to cover neither maintenance nor new plant construction costs.

Embarking on an expensive nuclear program only distracts attention away from Iran's existing electricity infrastructure inefficiencies. The explicit (construction, maintenance, decommissioning, and uranium costs) and implicit (resulting sanctions, international isolation, loss of much needed foreign investment) costs of Iran's continuing nuclear program belies any economic logic.

Photo Courtesy of The New York Times.

McCain: Atomic Apostle or Solar Sheik?

In a December 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Senator McCain stated that he planned to "greatly increase the use of nuclear power, a zero-emission energy source." After reading this, two things struck me as particularly interesting.

Firstly, although nuclear power does not produce atmospheric emissions, such as CO2, nuclear power plants certainly do have emissions; byproducts that seem, at least to me, much scarier than CO2. The problem of nuclear waste disposal leads to numerous "nimby" (not in my backyard) problems, as dad's desire for his son to become the star quarterback probably doesn't include an extra throwing arm. To date, no serious effort has been given to the very real nuclear waste disposal problem.

Secondly, nuclear power's mammoth water use raises many questions as to its widespread use for electricity generation. Thermoelectric cooling, used in nuclear power generation, represents one of the most water-intensive methods (in terms of withdrawals) of generating electricity. Around 195 billion gallons of water is withdrawn each day for this purpose alone.

It seems that this aspect of nuclear power generation would be particularly acute to a Senator from a water-scarce state like Arizona. In terms of environmental/resource trade-offs, it would seem that Arizona has much more land (and Sunlight) than water to spare for power generation.

Although Senator McCain has had a historically rocky relationship with the Sun--he was diagnosed with melanoma (skin cancer) in 2000--perhaps he will give his home state's most prodigious natural resource a second chance. In fact, Arizona has already announced plans to build the world's largest solar power plant, which is to be completed in 2011.

However, completion of the new solar plant is wholly dependent on whether or not Congress renews the clean energy tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2008. Hmmm, if only there was a tax-cutting Congressman from a sun-drenched Southwestern state to make sure those tax credits were renewed...

Given Senator McCain's lip service toward reducing America's dependence on "oil sheiks [and] their troubled politics", one would think that he might want to be first in line in the effort to make Arizona the "Persian Gulf of solar energy," and perhaps become the world's first "solar sheik" in the process.

Just some humble advice from a McCain supporter.

Image Courtesy of: The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/HC-GF036_McCain_20051014064133.gif

An Energy Eye on Russia: Week 3/ Thanks to Russia, Iran's first nuclear power plant should be working at 50% capacity by Fall 2008

When asked why Iran would want to have a national enrichment program when they can buy enriched Uranium cheaply from Russia, nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili responded that Iran is investing billions of dollars into 20 nuclear power plants over the next twenty years and needs to have an assured supply. (Aka, we don't trust the "international community" or.. we don't trust Russia?) Energy security, that's what it's all about nowadays. Russia and Iran had problems all last year March to December. Though it's seems ok now that the last shipment of nuclear fuel has arrived.

And with it... more sanctions...

Russia wants the Nuclear debate to be the concern of the Int'l Atomic Energy Agency, and not the Security Council. (LATIMES, 2008)

Sometimes I just like reading the different headlines.

Iran gets last batch of Russian atomic fuel: Russia and China are even more opposed to sanctions since U.S. Intelligence recently said that Iran halted it's Nuclear Programme in 2003. "Russia says the Bushehr power plant is being built under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog." - Reuters India

Too Easy to Refuse: U.S. Friendship or Nuclear Fuel? Nuclear Fuel. Thnx. "We were surprised, and somewhat reassured, that America and Europe managed to get China and Russia to sign on to any resolution. All of the key players — except the United States — have strong economic reasons not to put the squeeze on Iran." - NYTIMES

Intl. Community Supports Iran’s Nuclear Program: Numbers as to how many states are in NAM vary. But I've seen 115 and 118. The link goes to the list of member states according to South Africa. "We think and we believe that the international community is supporting Iran’s position with regard to its peaceful nuclear activities and programs. More than 120 countries in the non-aligned movement supported Iran’s position and its peaceful program and its rights within its nuclear energy program. Just two or three countries consider themselves to be the international community, they consider themselves to be the entire international community. Even the U.S. national intelligence report acknowledged that Iran is following a peaceful nuclear program in the country." - Tehran Times

nuclear energy and the debates

I wrote a comment regarding nuclear energy from the post below, but it was so long I thought it'd be a good idea to repost it here.

A lot of people involved in the debate about nuclear energy aren't informed about the mechanics of nuclear power and its benefits. Its not a perfect solution, but it offers a reliable, safe, and extremely well regulated source of power. If you have doubts, look no further than the U.S. Navy which has operated nuclear reactors for over 50 years.

Regarding the Democratic debates, I went to a John Edwards rally over the summer and became dissatisfied with his energy policy after his adamant refusal to support an increase in nuclear energy. I'm not a one topic voter, but I feel so strongly about the benefits nuclear power holds that I wrote him off.

Ultimately I think education of the public will help to alleviate the barriers of building new reactors in the U.S. There is a stigma against nuclear energy after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but education about why there were disasters involving the reactors needs to be done. Additionally, advances in reactor design, waste management, and heavy regulation by the NRC have addressed those problems.

I really believe that nuclear energy should be looked at seriously for the future.

David Wogan
http://davidwogan.us

Nuclear Power is Not Clean

The Miami Herald recently covered the fact that FP&L's request for its nuclear power facilities to qualify for renewable energy credits, or RECs, was denied by the state of Florida:

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/08/nuclear_power_not_clean.php

I say kudos to the state regulators for seeing through all this hogwash about nuclear power being clean just because it does not emit conventional air pollutants.

Thanks to the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear fusion, nuclear is one of the dirtiest ways to produce electricity known to mankind. And what's worse, it's one of the costliest.

Ask the average American why they don't power their house with solar panels, and they'll tell you it's too expensive. Ask an expert, and they'll explain that the up-front cost of buying and installing solar panels, amortized over the life of the panels (30 to 50 years), devided by the total amount of electricity the panels will produce, will give you in the range of $.25 to $.35 per killowatt of electricity produced, compared to $.07 to $.12 per killowatt for natural gas and much cheaper for coal. According to many experts, nuclear power is even cheaper than that.

I'm an MBA student, and one thing we learn at McCombs is how to build financial models that incorporate expenses and revenues over time. We usually build these models out 5, maybe 10 years. Anything past 30 years is just too unpredictable. After all, how can you estimate costs that far into the future?

The problem with nuclear is that, in order to incorporate the full costs of producing nuclear power, you have to try to calculate the cost of managing the nuclear waste going out 3000, 4000, or 5000 years into the future. No one can do that, so no one does do that. Looking at this time horizon, it seems obvious that nuclear is outrageously expensive, and that's because it's incredibly dirty.

And if such a dirty source of energy can qualify for renewable energy credits (an eventuality which would fit nicely into Dr. Webber's characterization of current U.S. energy policy), then we find ourselves in a hot, steaming pile of trouble.

Sleep tight.

Cyrus Tashakkori