Stop by and check it out!

Happy New Year!

John Wheeler
This Week in Nuclear

Podcast Episode 115 - 

 Play the Podcast

My first reaction was “Wow! Did I just read that correctly?!”

It was one of those “ah-ha moments” when a seemingly mundane statement leapt out of the page and whacked me on the forehead.  This time the catalyst was a twitter reply from Chris Pragman (@ChrisPragman) who describes himself as an “Avid Podcast listener, Engineer, Nuclear Power, Fire Protection, and beer geek with a long commute!”

You see, I had posted a tweet earlier in the day about the cost to taxpayers of some “green energy” jobs.  There’s a new wind farm in Oregon called Shepherds Flat that received federal cash grants totaling $490 million under the guise of job creation.  For that grand sum the Shepherds Flat project will create 35 new jobs.  The math is easy; $14 million per “green energy” job. Our tax dollars at work!

This tidbit about Shepherds Flat was part of a larger report by the Energy Tribune that among other things compared the relative size of US government subsidies to various energy industries.  The report by Robert Bryce calculated subsidy dollars per unit energy produced and concluded the renewable energy industry receives 6.5 times more federal government subsidies than the nuclear industry, and 12 times more than the oil and gas industry.  That fact really didn’t surprise me considering the billions of dollars in grants, production tax credits, and favorable depreciation rules the government lavishes upon anything branded with the “renewable” label.  Then Chris asked a great question, “What do they consider nuclear subsidies?”

When I dug into that question I learned the Congressional Budget Office is tasked with tracking the amount the government spends subsidizing various industries, and they publish their findings periodically.  There it was on page 3: $900 million in “subsidies” for the “favorable tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning funds.”  Hmmm. What could that be?

You see, every nuclear plant owner is required by federal law to set aside funds to ensure there’ll be enough money to pay for decommissioning the plant when the time comes.  Typically plant operators add to the fund each year and over time the fund grows until it’s used. The NRC monitors each fund and will require plant owners to make additional payments if they think they’re behind.  These funds are essentially forced savings accounts that add to each nuclear plants annual operating expenses.

So what’s the “favorable tax treatment?”  It turns out Title 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code requires interest or other investment earnings of nuclear plant decommissioning funds to be taxed at “only” 20%.  Maybe I’m alone in this, but being required by law to set up a fund, then being taxed on that fund’s growth hardly fits the definition of a “subsidy!”  Other sources of energy are not required to set up such funds – they carry the potential future costs of dismantling equipment as liabilities on their balance sheets.  In the case of nuclear plants they’re forced to set aside capitol in government mandated and monitored funds, then the government takes 20% of the fund’s earnings.

Anyway, in 2009 the CBO calculated this “favorable tax treatment” to be worth $900 million, and they called that a “subsidy.”  That’s quite a different kind of subsidy from the cash grants, tax credits, and accelerated depreciation enjoyed by the renewable energy industry.  Personally, I have a tough time viewing this as a subsidy at all.

Chris, thanks for asking the question! I learned something new today, and maybe some of you out there did too.

Happy Birthday to This Week in Nuclear!

On Dec 27 This Week in Nuclear will turn seven years old.  I would like to express my heartfelt “thanks” to all of you who have supported and continue to support the blog and podcast!

Happy Holidays!

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

The Most Popular button is at the top of the right side bar and it provides a shortcut to the blog posts that have received the most user attention in the last year. Try it out – you might find an interesting post that you missed the first time around!

Along with some behind-the-scenes tweaks, other noteworthy changes include:

• a new contact form
• updated Podcasting Tips
• eliminated out-of-date pages

Have a great nuclear day!

John

Spain imports fuel for about 51 % of their electricity production in the form of coal and natural gas. Payments for these imported commodities contribute to a debilitating trade imbalance. Nuclear energy makes up the lion’s share (47%) of Spain’s domestic energy production. Their eight nuclear energy facilities add tens of thousands of jobs and billions of euros per year to the national economy while reducing the need for imported coal or gas.  At the same time Spain’s nuclear plants provide reliable, predictable energy without greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of renewable energy generated in Spain has increased considerably over the last several years.  In fact, in 2012 wind energy production exceeded nuclear energy production for brief periods when demand was low, some nuclear plants were out of service, and wind conditions were nearly optimal.  Unfortunately, Spain’s methods of encouraging investment in renewables have contributed to their current financial crises. The Spanish electricity industry is carrying $32 billion of debt, putting serious strain on an already faltering economy.

Spain’s Domestic and Imported Sources of Electricity (2011)

Spain began deregulating their electricity supply system in the late 1990′s.  Their approach was eerily similar to the failed California experiment; they removed price controls to allow power generators to compete among themselves, but they limited rates paid by customers. As wholesale energy prices rose utilities were unable to recover the higher costs through higher rates to customers.  The result was predictable: electric utilities began loosing money on a grand scale.  Since 2005 annual “energy deficits” have been in the billions of euros per year.  With slight-of-hand economics, the Spanish government allowed utilities to “bank” their annual deficits against future earnings.  Unfortunately those future earnings never materialized and deficits ballooned.

A the same time Spain (like California) began a heavily subsidized renewable energy program that included “feed-in tariffs” which guaranteed wind and solar generators above market prices for all of the energy they could produce.  Consequently utilities were forced to buy wind and solar energy at inflated rates, but were not allowed to recover the costs because of those same price controls.  Solar and wind energy investors raked in billions of euros per year while the utility deficit grew even faster.  By some accounts electric utility debt in Spain now stands at $32 billion.

These out-of-whack energy policies cost Spanish workers dearly; for every renewable energy job created more than five existing jobs were lost and unemployment soared to over 20%.  According to the Canada Free Press:

For each megawatt of wind energy installed, 4.27 jobs were lost, and for each megawatt of solar energy installed, 12.7 jobs were lost.

Eventually it became clear the Spanish government would have to act to curtail the exploding debt and rescue the utilities from bankruptcy.  Earlier this year they stopped granting requests for new feed-in tariffs. Beginning in January 2013 they’re implementing a new 6% flat tax on all electricity production.  In addition, they’ve singled out nuclear energy for “special” taxes they are calling a “nuclear waste generation and storage tax.”

Let’s get this straight: Spain’s national energy policies enriched wind and solar energy investors while bankrupting utilities and contributing to massive job losses.  Now they’re calling on nuclear energy operators, their largest source of domestic energy to foot the bill!  Not only is this course of action irrational and unfair, it punishes the domestic energy production and job creation they desperately need and it perpetuates favoritism for expensive renewables that created the problem in the first place.

The first victim has already fallen to the anti-nuclear tax; the Santa María de Garoña nuclear plant is being forced out of business. Garoña is a 446 MW BWR that began commercial operation in 1971. The plant’s owner says the new 153 million euro tax that will go into effect in January is more than ten times the plant’s annual profit.  They have no choice but to shut the plant down for the last time on Sunday, December 23.  Hundreds of jobs will be lost at the plant and in surrounding communities.  Since Garoña provides about 1.4% of Spain’s electricity, utilities will be forced to import more coal and natural gas to make up for lost base load generation.

With lost jobs, lost revenues, and rising energy imports Spain’s energy death spiral continues.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

Mis oraciones por mis amigos de Garoña. Buena suerte en el Año Nuevo, y le deseo todo lo major.

The monks said they also want to call attention to what they believe are the global dangers of nuclear power.  “We need to shut down the San Onofre,” Gyosen Sawada of Los Angeles, who said he was born in Fukushima, Japan, told the group before beginning a three-hour walk from Dana Point Harbor. “No more Hiroshima. No more Nagasaki. No more Three Mile Island. No more Fukushima. No more San Onofre.”

As is so often the case with anti-nuclear activists, these monks toss all things nuclear into one evil pile; in their minds atomic bombs and nuclear energy facilities are equally vile.  Funny how they avoided mention of CT scans, diagnostic x-rays, and nuclear medicine which account for virtually all of the man-made radiation exposure we receive (even for members of the public around the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant).

I guess they missed the memo from the Dalai Lama who, after the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant went on the record in support of nuclear energy. The Tibetan Buddhist leader said he supports nuclear energy as a way to bridge the socioeconomic gap in developing nations and in the absence of more efficient alternative energy sources. That’s a pretty insightful view from a leader who understands the causes of human suffering and the connection between access to energy and poverty.  He also recognizes alternatives like wind and solar energy will be difficult to expand on the scale needed to alleviate global poverty.

We might expect these monks to hold similarly informed views, after all they come from a Japanese Shingon monastery.  This set of Buddhist teachings falls under the Vajranaña school, which also includes Tibetan Buddhism.  On the other hand, one of the monks described himself as a “homey from the projects in New York City.”  Perhaps he’s been more influenced by the misguided energy policies of NY Governor Andy Cuomo than by the teachings of the renown Tibetan spiritual leader.

Activists, medical practitioners and politicians who have demanded moratoriums [on uranium mining] may have various reasons for doing so, but their claims that the public and environment are at risk are fundamentally wrong.

That about sums up the facts on the safety of uranium mining and the validity of motives of those who oppose it.  What’s particularly noteworthy about this statement is its source: Michael Binder, the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  It’s impressive to see this level of leadership from the Canadian equivalent of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

It’s also in stark contrast with the actions of former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko who remained silent last year when the US Department of Interior banned uranium mining for 20 years across 4000 square km of Arizona.  Their excuse was “protecting the Grand Canyon,” but the area in question is outside both the Grand Canyon and the buffer zone that protects the park.

It would be great to see new NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane following Mr. Binder’s lead to dispel the myths around uranium mining and take a first step in overturning the arbitrary ban.

As was predicted on this blog and elsewhere, the multi-barrier reactor containment design protected the public.  Contrary to claims by anti-nuclear groups, the melted cores did NOT burn through the reactor vessels.  The containment structures remained virtually intact. The damaged reactor fuel remained inside the reactor vessels and containment systems.

Despite preposterous claims by Greenpeace and others, there were no chunks of plutonium scattered across the countryside.  Only radioactive gasses escaped over the land, and most of that gas was short lived Iodine that has long since decayed away.

As reported on Bloomberg and other news sources, no one in the public was harmed by radiation from the damaged reactors.  A small number of plant workers received higher than normal radiation exposures, without lasting effects.  Any hypothetical future health effects will be immeasurably low and will be indistinguishable from normal disease rates within the general population.

No one, not even the “Fukushima 50″, was exposed to life threatening amounts of radiation.  Journalists who flew across the Pacific to cover the story received more radiation exposure from cosmic rays in flight than they received from the reactors once on the ground.

The visually spectacular hydrogen explosions of the plant buildings, while providing great fodder for anti-nuclear rhetoric had little impact on the safety of the reactors, and harmed no one.

The unit 4 fuel storage pools did not empty of water and did not catch on fire.  The fuel there remained safely submerged and suffered no damage of any consequence.

Finally, there was no need for the 50-mile evacuation zone ordered by NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. His decision still has nuclear experts scratching their heads and wondering why.  Jaczko’s actions demonstrated he lacks the experience and knowledge to ask the right questions at crucial moments.  In addition, he lacked the wisdom to recognize other more credible information was available that contradicted his view.  He needlessly rushed forward with an ill-advised decision that was horribly wrong.

This is not to imply there were no environmental or economic impacts from the reactor accident – of course there were!  The expensive cleanup in surrounding areas will take years and will cost billions.  This is but a small fraction of the total cost of recovery from the horrific earthquake and tsunami.

The earthquake and tsunami were responsible for untold human suffering and devastation.  That is where the focus of the world should have been and should continue to be.  The problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant accident have contributed needlessly to Japan’s economic burden by prompting the irrational shutdown of nuclear plants across the country.  This has caused energy shortages and billions of dollars of additional costs from skyrocketing imports of fossil fuels.  Of course, the fossil fuels providers are scrambling to rake in tens of billions of dollars in profits.

The health effects to Japan’s population were NOT from radiation, but from stress caused by the unfounded fear of future health effects.  The responsibility for this lies squarely on anti-nuclear activists who relished in spouting fatalistic, exaggerated claims, and on an uninformed media who presented those claims as virtual facts while downplaying opposing views from true experts in the field.

What better way to celebrate National Nuclear Science Week than to acknowledge amazing career opportunities that exist for people interested in joiningthe nuclear renaissance. If you are a middle or high school student (or are the parent of one) considering college alternatives, you would be hard pressed to find a better investment than earning an associates or bachelors degree in nuclear-related science, engineering, or technology.

Opportunities for entry level positions have not been this rich at any time during the past three decades, and the nuclear industry is partnering with many schools to ensure graduates have the knowledge and skill for success as power plant engineers, operators, and technicians. Because of a combination of national and international trends, there have never been more opportunities for young people to begin careers in the nuclear industry.

About 120,000 people are currently employed in the U.S. nuclear industry. Over the next several years, many of these workers will retire. As a result, the industry will need to hire more than 25,000 new employees just to maintain the existing workforce. The economic slowdown  over the past few years has caused many workers to delay their retirement.

Today retirements are once again on the rise because 401K balances have recovered and workers have earned additional credits in pension plans. For example, in 2011 about 2,000 workers retired from the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States, prompting many utilities to increase hiring. Four new nuclear plants being built in Georgia and South Carolina will each add up to 2,400 workers during construction, plus 400 to 700 permanent jobs when each is operating. In addition, the nuclear industry is booming overseas with more than 60 plants under construction around the world and many more planned. All of this means ample opportunities for rewarding careers in many nuclear related fields.

The industry hires almost every type of engineer, not just nuclear engineers. The most common are mechanical, electrical, civil, and power systems engineers. Since there are engineering colleges and universities in every state that offer one or more of these degree programs, opportunities are plentiful. Earning a bachelors degree in these engineering majors opens the door to an entry-level engineer position with a starting salary of approximately $60,000 to $65,000.

Some of the positions in greatest demand at nuclear plants are power plant operators and technicians. These opportunities generally require an associate’s degree or equivalent training. Starting salaries range from around $45,000 per year to about $50,000. As workers gain experience, salaries can rise $20,000 or higher to an average of $65,000 to $70,000, and overtime pay often adds thousands more to annual income.

In the past, finding a college that offered education courses for future operators and technicians could be difficult, but this is no longer the case. Several years ago the industry began working with colleges across the United States to create new degree programs. Today there are more than 40 community colleges around the U.S. offering what is known as the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum (NUCP). The NUCP is a standardized associates degree program that prepares students for careers as nuclear operators and technicians. Students who earn a B grade or better in their core courses are awarded a transferable certificate that is recognized at all 104 nuclear plants.

For workers interested in advancing into leadership roles, these positions in engineering, operations, and other technical fields are excellent starting points for future management positions.

According to the College Board, the national average for community college tuition and fees is about $3,000 per year. Thus, for about $6,000 a student with a solid math and science background can attend an NUCP school for two years and earn an associates degree and a transferable credential. This would qualify them for an entry-level position as an operator or technician earning a starting salary of $45,000 to $50,000. This is certainly one of the greatest deals in education today!

More information on careers in the nuclear industry is available from theAmerican Nuclear Society, theNuclear Energy Institute, and atGet Into Energy.

John Wheeler

It must be great to be a climate change believer.You get to boldly declare your alignment with the “A” team, the smartest minds and greatest strategic thinkers of our time, or so we’ve been told.You get praise from big government (at least under the current US administration) and get to hang out with old hippies who sail up and down the Hudson River playing folk music and singing songs about Mother Earth and fighting the good fight.

Unfortunately, I can’t count myself in, but I’m not exactly out either.I’m on the fence and that’s a problem for me.My science and engineering education taught me enough about pv=nrt and the partial pressure law of gasses to know you can’t just keep dumping airborne crud and gasses into a fixed volume of anything without changing it’s composition.I’ve also been around long enough to see changes in the planet, but are those being caused by progressive man-made climate change or a normal natural cycle?

I know a lot of very smart people I admire greatly who are staunch climate change believers, and almost an equal number of equally smart engineers and scientists who swear it’s the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on modern humanity.I’ve been reading a great deal on the topic lately because I really DO want to understand both sides of the argument with the hope that it will become clear and I’ll be able to join one crowd or another.

I’ve come to realize a big reason I continue to be a climate change skeptic is I question the integrity and the motives of the most vocal climate change advocates.I simply do not trust they are telling the truth.This is why:

1. If the real goal were to reduce greenhouse gasses, then it would be logical that environmental leaders would advocate policies to reward low carbon behavior and penalize high carbon endeavors, regardless of the technology involved.Instead, environmental and political leaders have already chosen “winning technologies” of conservation, wind and solar energy. Insistence on these creates the impression that social redesign are the real goal, not saving the environment.If leaders were really serious about reducing carbon emissions they would create a technology neutral playing field that punishes carbon emissions and rewards low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources.

2. Many of the most vocal proponents of man-caused climate change insist on solutions that won’t work.Despite massive investment in solar, wind, and conservation, there remains not a glimmer of hope that these can provide sufficient energy to replace fossil fuels, much less accommodate the energy requirements of the world’s growing population.The math just does not work.This virtually assures growing emissions from oil, gas, and coal.These facts cause me to wonder if the environmental movement created climate change as a means to promote their social and political agendas.

3. The anti-nuclear movement creates a huge credibility problem for global warming advocates.Many of the same people who accuse “climate skeptics” of ignoring science are themselves ignoring facts that show nuclear fission is the safest form of large-scale energy production.They also continue to over state the dangers associated with radiation exposure even though growing evidence suggests old theories about the risks of low-level radiation exposure are flat out wrong.

4. Governments are using the climate change mantra as an excuse to increase taxes and regulation, while spending tax revenues in ways that have nothing to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.In other cases they turn a blind eye to or even subsidize the worst CO2 emitters.

5. I know I’m getting away from science in my last reason, but emotions can be just as great a factor in our beliefs as facts.I confess: I have such huge distrust in Al Gore that I have a difficult time believing in anything he says.Gore preaches conservation yet lives a lifestyle that is hundreds of times more carbon intensive than the average American.He tells people to buy carbon credits without disclosing his financial relationship with a company that sells them.He flies around the globe on CO2 spewing private jets when commercial air travel could do just fine.Finally, he promotes the carbon reduction “wedge” strategy yet intentionally omits one of the most important wedges of all: expanding nuclear energy.

On a side note, fortunately whether or not I believe in man-made climate change has little bearing on my support for nuclear energy. Even without the risk of global environmental collapse from the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere and oceans, there are plenty of reasons we should be building more nuclear power plants, including

• Reducing air pollution that causes mercury poisoning, acid rain, and airborne particulates blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide each year.

• Reducing reliance on expensive imported petroleum products, and the negative impact that has on our nation’s economy.

• Reducing reliance on a fuel supply that will become increasingly scarce and in demand as world population explodes.

• Good jobs for more people. Nuclear energy facilities employ far more people than power plants that burn coal, oil or gas. The expense of operating a nuclear plant is chiefly in the salaries of the people who work there.  By contrast, most of the cost of operating a gas or coal plant is the cost of the fuel.

With this in mind, you can help me get off the fence on man-made climate change.Whether you are a climate change believer or a climate change denier, I’m interested in hearing from you.Please take a few minutes to post a comment here or on the Facebook fan page to share your thoughts – do you believe in man-caused climate change and why? If there was a turning point in your belief, what was it and how did it come about? When possible provide links to references that make the case supporting your position.

Thank you for your help!

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

Powered by Qumana

As it was designed to do, the San Onofre nuclear plant automatically disconnected itself from the grid and shut down then the blackout occurred.  This was done as part of the plant’s protective scheme to shield the plant from unintended consequences from the falling grid voltage and frequency.  A similar thing happened to nine nuclear plants in the eastern USA during the blackout of 2003.

Why do nuclear plants trip off line when a blackout happens?

While this is a somewhat simplified answer, it covers the fundamentals.  Please be aware my experience is with pressurized water reactors, but the same basic principles should apply to boiling water reactors.

The nuclear plant’s generator, like that of any electrical generator supplying the grid, is electrically locked to the voltage and frequency of the grid. As grid voltage drops, so does the voltage sensed inside the plant. Most large electric loads inside nuclear plants are electric motors on pumps, valves, fans, and other such equipment.  To drive a fixed mechanical load connected to the shaft, a motor must draw a fixed amount of power from the power line. The amount of power the motor draws is roughly related to the voltage times current (amps). Thus, when voltage gets low, the current must get higher to provide the same amount of power.  Thus, as voltage drops, current inside the motors rises. This increase in current can cause overheating and short circuits. 

Note: the paragraph above was revised to correct an oversimplification & error in my original post. The results are the same, my explanation was lacking.

Also, normally the alternating current on the grid operates at 60 cycles per second (60 hertz).  As the grid collapses, the frequency begins to drop. If allowed to continue this would cause the nuclear plant’s reactor coolant pumps to run slower, thus moving less water through the reactor.  Less cooling water could potentially lead to higher than normal fuel temperatures.  To protect against the reactor operating with degraded cooling water flow, nuclear plants have various means of sensing low grid frequency or coolant flow.  When electrical frequency or reactor cooling flow drops below a defined threshold it triggers an automatic shut down.  Some of these protection schemes are anticipatory in nature – they happen predicatively before the grid situation has a chance to deteriorate to the point of causing a challenge to the reactor or plant equipment.

Why can’t nuclear plants stay on line when a black out happens?

While it’s possible to design a nuclear plant to be able to stay online during a loss of off-site power, it would require some large and expensive equipment, and a redesign of the reactor protection system.

The loss of electrical power to equipment inside the plant is not the only aspect of a loss of off-site power (LOOP) that designers have to consider. Another significant challenge is designing mechanical and control systems to withstand an instantaneous loss of load from 100% power to around 10% power.  The reactor is putting out 100% power one instant, and the next instant the “grid” is gone and the only load on the rector is in-house loads.  Since reactors can not change load that quickly, the reactor will be generating excess heat until reactor power can drop to balance with the new load.  While reactor power is greater than the load there is excess heat being generated.  That heat has to go somewhere; it causes the water in the reactor coolant system to heat up and to expand.  Thus, to accommodate a 100% loss of load a nuclear plant needs a reactor coolant system with a large surge volume to accept that expanding water, and a large heat dump system to reject the extra heat. Both of these attributes can be designed into a reactor system – I personally operated a prototype naval reactor that was designed to accommodate a near instantaneous 100% load rejection.  However, in a land based power plant the extra system hardware would be costly.  Since base load power plants are not expected to withstand a loss of grid transient often, it is tough to justify the extra expense.

It’s possible that some of the new small modular reactors could be designed to stay on line during a LOOP.  Perhaps some of my SMR friends will add some comments to this post below?

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear