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, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and at Get 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

The pipeline runs through Sinai, a Nairobi ghetto of corrugated tin and cardboard huts.  When the pipe began leaking hundreds of people gathered around to scoop up the spilled gasoline.  As the crowd grew a spark from a cigarette butt or some other heat source ignited the fuel.  The blast incinerated scores of people nearby.  Flames cascaded down on nearby huts then raced through the crowded slum.

Trying to image the chaotic and horrific scene, I realized there was something so far outside my own paradigm that I had to stop for moment to collect my thoughts…who runs TOWARDS a leaking gasoline pipeline?  Maybe that’s a silly question; but if anyone reading this came upon a leaking gasoline pipeline they would stop, back away, and call for help.  You would keep your distance while warning others not to go near for fear of igniting the leak and causing a fire or explosion.  If you were forced to approach the leak you would fear for your life and rightfully so!

So what is different between you and the hundreds of people in Kenya that did the exact opposite?  As word spread through Sinai about the leaking pipeline hundreds of people grabbed every container they could find and rushed towards the explosive spill! You might settle on a simple socioeconomic answer: because they are poor they’ll risk their lives for a few dollars worth of anything of value.  The real answer is a lot more complicated.  These people are not only poor, they are super poor, and one of the factors that separates the poor from truly impoverished is the lack of access to even basic energy sources that human beings need to survive.  They are energy destitute.

Another way of saying this is availability of plentiful, accessible energy is the greatest single factor that allows people to rise out of poverty.  All of the world’s developed economies got that way because they had access to plentiful supplies of energy.  For the energy destitute, a few kilowatts will replace dung or scraps of wood for cooking and warmth.  A few more kW and a village will have running water and refrigeration, and fewer people die of water or food born disease.  A bit more and machines can aid in harvesting or processing food in larger quantities.   Even more and suddenly the schools have electric lights and access to information that accelerates learning and further socioeconomic growth.

The people who ran towards that leaking gasoline pipeline did so knowing there was a risk of fire and death, but they accepted the risk and went anyway.  They placed such a high value in a few gallons of gasoline that they consciously or subconsciously decided it was worth risking their lives.  If they lived with even small amounts of reliable energy in their daily lives they would not have placed such great value on a few thousand BTUs of energy from a can of gasoline.  They would have reacted like you and me.

The investigation will unfold, and the cause of the fire will be known; a broken valve and a cigarette butt, or a rusty pipe and a static spark.  But it won’t really matter because they’ll ignore the real culprit.  The real blame rests on short sighted and corrupt political leaders around the world who have perpetuated energy policies that keep the world addicted to dangerous and limited fossil fuel supplies.  As a result, human beings compete for this limited energy with rationing accomplished by the economic divide.  The billions of impoverished people at the bottom have not a chance of getting the energy they need.  To make matters worse, as fossil fuel supplies dwindle and the earth’s population grows the problems will become acutely worse.

The only real solution to this worsening problem is to adopt global energy policies that improve access to low cost, abundant energy.   That energy will have to be low carbon because to continue dumping fossil fuel waste into the environment in such increasing amounts would result in an environmental disaster! Solar and wind energy can help, but in most applications they are too expensive or too intermittent to be useful for the growing billions of energy destitute and impoverished people.

The only realistic alternative is nuclear energy.  While nuclear power plants are relatively expensive to build, the per unit price drops with each successive plant of similar type built.  Once built, nuclear plants are cheap to operate because the fuel costs are so low.  New technologies like molten salt breeder reactors, fast breeder reactors, and “traveling wave” reactors offer additional fuel economy and safety advantages.  Thorium and used fuel from existing reactors will provide an almost limitless supply of fuel as these new reactors spread across the world.

Pundits will argue the risk of meltdown is too great, but the truth is in the numbers.  More than 100 people died in Kenya this week, and these types of accidents are becoming increasingly common.  About 5,000 people die around the world each year in coal mining accidents. Tens of thousands more die prematurely from fossil fuel waste products dumped in the air.   Yet the world takes these deaths in stride because we’ve been brainwashed to view these casualties as “worth the risk” and not reason enough to stop using fossil fuels.

By comparison, reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi, one of the “worst nuclear accidents” in history resulted in exactly zero deaths, and none are likely to occur in the future because radiation exposures to workers and the public have been low. While there is much media hype around “contaminated” soil and food, experience from places in the world with naturally high radiation levels, and from Chernobyl, where radioactive contamination of the soil was far worse than in Japan, has taught us that people have little to fear from the small increase above natural radiation they are likely to receive living near Fukushima.

The wealthy, elite anti-nuclear activists who jet around the globe to preach conservation and renewables own their share of the Sinai casualties.  Their successful efforts to demonize nuclear energy and slow its expansion around the world serve to perpetuate the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.  This in turn feeds the chronic energy shortage that exists for impoverished people everywhere.   They promote so-called “green” renewable energy sources that, because of their intermittent nature, require almost continuous fossil fueled backup.

While renewable energy can help, realistically only nuclear energy can supply clean, carbon-free energy in sufficient quantities to feed an energy starved world.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

If things are running properly there are redundant transmission lines, spinning reserves, and power plants on standby.  When a failure happens a single transmission line may go down, but system operators can reroute power around the failure and if necessary order standby power plants to pick up the load.   What happened in San Diego is likely a symptom of a much bigger problem.  Strategies focusing on conservation and expanding intermittent renewable energy sources, while ignoring the need for base load power plants close to population centers may have weakened the California grid.

In southern California there exists insufficient electrical generating capacity close to electrical loads; the cities.  Instead, utilities rely heavily on power imported over long distances from neighboring states, and there may be too few power plants inside transmission “bottle necks.”  This places cities like San Diego at much greater risk of blackouts.  When the umbilical cord from Arizona was unexpectedly severed, the few power plants close to the city simply could not provide enough power to maintain grid voltage.  As voltage dropped those power plants automatically disconnected to protect themselves from the low voltage condition.  The result?  A major blackout.

If the San Diego grid had sufficient local power they should have been able to isolate a small part of the grid and continue to run on their own power plants.  Even if the local grid lost power, they should have been able to call reserve power plants into operation to repower the grid within a few minutes.  Unfortunately, the power plants were over loaded; there simply wasn’t enough capacity to repower the grid without assistance from the outside.

California’s much touted renewables were of no use.  The wind was blowing only 8 mph at the time, and skies were partly cloudy.  Any tiny wind and solar capacity that was available was out-gunned thousands to one.

New York had better take notice!  Shutting down Indian Point Nuclear plant would have exactly the same impact on the electrical grid.  This is because Indian Point’s 2100 megawatts are physically located INSIDE the transmission bottleneck feeding New York City.  In a future without Indian Point operating, a similar failure of a single transmission line could easily black out New York City, just as it did in San Diego this week.  The NY Independent System Operator has already warned Gov. Andrew Cuomo that if Indian Point is shut down prematurely the grid in southern New York will become unstable.  As a result, New York City will be more susceptible to blackouts.  Gov. Cuomo’s plan? Shut down Indian Point now and hope that 2100 megawatts of generating capacity will magically appear to replace it.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

The differences between a generic simulator and a plant-specific one are often in precisely the systems the Fukushima operators were struggling with: electrical power supplies, cooling water, and building ventilation.  These differences matter little when training for events within the design basis of the reactor, but when events stray outside the design basis, include “cascading” failures, and involve severe accident response, generic simulators can’t accurately model the events.  When training for situations that exceed the capabilities of a simulator, instructors are left with fewer, less realistic options like classroom training or “table top” walkthroughs of operator actions.

In my 20+ years as a nuclear plant senior reactor operator, instructor, and manager I spent thousands of hours on plant specific simulators as a student, instructor, and management evaluator.  I can say with certainty the differences between a generic and plant specific simulator matter greatly in the quality of training received by operators! This higher quality training results in operators with greater proficiency in dealing with plant upsets and complex events.  In fact, training on generic simulators is a practice the USA abandoned more than 20 years ago. This shift was but one of  many improvements in training for nuclear workers adopted following the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant.  Today no nuclear plant can be built in the USA without it’s own plant specific simulator, and no operator can be granted a reactor operator’s license without exhaustive training and examination on a plant specific simulator.

My peers from other nations often have not agreed.  Many I have met view plant specific simulators as a costly extravagance, and they still rely on generic simulators.  In addition, generic simulators are often located at some central or distant location rather than on the plant site.  This makes simulator training less frequent and more time consuming because of the travel involved. As a result, operators get far less simulator time per year than their counterparts with local plant specific simulators.

In the USA, nuclear plant control room operators routinely spend one of every five or six weeks in full time training.  Each training week is typically composed of 20 hours of simulator time and 20 hours in the classroom, and includes both written examinations and evaluated scenarios in the simulator. If a team or individual fails to pass an evaluation they do not return to operate the plant until they have been remediated and pass a subsequent re-evaluation.  The result is more than 100 hours of training and evaluation per year on plant specific simulators for every operator.  Compare this to commercial airline pilots who typically attend only one week of simulator training per year, and you begin to get the picture of how highly trained US nuclear plant operators are.  When taking into account initial qualifications, additional training for subsequently higher levels of responsibility, and routine “continuing training”, a typical nuclear plant operator in the USA spends about one-third of their career in training!

While it is too soon to draw conclusions, I suspect the international response to the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi will include improvements in the quality and quantity of operator training, and increased access to plant specific simulators at nuclear plants around the world.   Even if official findings do not include this recommendation, nuclear utilities without plant specific simulators would be wise to consider such an investment at each nuclear plant they operate.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

One such speculator is a privately owned Swiss-based company, Advanced Power Services.  They have begun preliminary work to build a 1000 MW gas fired power plant in Dutchess County New York, about 40 miles north of Indian Point.  There was a front page article in the Poughkeepsie Journal today describing how shutting down the 2100 MW nuclear plant could help the local project gain traction.

News that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has issued his strongest statement yet in favor of closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant has improved the chances that a proposed plant in Dutchess County would be built.

I know something about Dutchess County, NY because I lived there for several years while working at Indian Point.  In reading the story, I wondered if the editors of the Poughkeepsie Journal gave one moments thought to the fact that many of the people who work at Indian Point live in Dutchess County?  There’s no mention in the article of the serious economic impact that would befall the county shold Indian Point be prematurely shut down.

Here’s a copy of the comment I posted on the online version of the article:

This article seems to imply there would be a silver lining for Dutchess County if Gov. Coumo has his way and shuts down Indian Point. In reality, trading Indian Point for a 1000 MW gas fired power plant is a terrible idea and would harm Dutchess County. A large number, probably at least 300 of the 1100 men and women who work at Indian Point live in Dutchess County. They earn good paychecks and spend most of it in the county. Most own homes and pay property and school taxes. Sure, the new plant would hire a few people, but nuclear plants pay WAY MORE than gas plants, and it takes ten times as many people to run a nuclear plant as a gas plant. The net effect would be a huge loss of jobs.

If Indian Point is shut down, hundreds of families will leave Dutchess County. As they go they will flood the already depressed real estate market with homes for sale. Do you remember the impact of the IBM layoffs of the 1990’s on housing prices? It took a decade for home prices to begin to recover.

Then there’s the impact on electricity rates. While natural gas is relatively inexpensive now, nuclear energy is still cheaper. More gas power and less nuclear energy will cause electricity rates to go up for the entire region. Also, there’s no guarantee that gas prices will stay low. As more demand is placed on gas supplies (like this proposed new 1000 MW gas burner), gas prices are likely to rise. Energy from Indian Point is some of the lowest cost electricity in the region, and the price is not subject to the ups and downs of a commodity like gas.

Finally, there’s the air pollution and greenhouse gas problem. Sure; gas burns cleaner than coal, but a gas power plant still pumps out millions of tons of CO2, smog producing chemicals, and toxins directly into the air we breath. Air in the Hudson Valley is already in bad shape. We can’t afford to allow another large polluter in the valley! Indian Point produces none of these airborne pollutants.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

Shumlin and his followers don’t like that.  They really want the plant shut down.  In fact, it will be a major political defeat for Shumlin if he looses this fight against the evil foreigners from Louisiana.  Plus, if he fails, he’ll renege on a campaign promise he made to all the anti-nuclear activists that gravitated to his cause.

But they can’t shut the plant down for SAFTEY concerns because they don’t have that authority AND because the plant is undeniably safe.  You see, the NRC has a very structured and systematic process for determining whether or not a plant is being operated safely and Vermont Yankee passes with flying colors.  In fact, much to the chagrin of Pete Shumlin, VY consistently gets some of the highest safety marks of the 104 commercial reactors in the USA!

So what does the state of Vermont say?  “Oh we’re not trying to regulate SAFETY!  We’re concerned over RELIABILITY and the ECONOMICIS of the nuclear plant.  That’s why we want it shut down!”

I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll refrain from passing judgment on the legal virtuosity of Shumlin’s claims.  Instead, why not exercise a more basic test we can all understand: the “sniff test.”

I’m sure Governor Shumlin knows what the sniff test is.  After all, he grew up on a dairy farm.

One of several Internet dictionaries defines a sniff test like this:

Noun

sniff test (plural sniff tests): An informal reality check of an idea or proposal, using one’s common sense or sense of propriety.

In the small town in Indian where I was raised we’re a bit more blunt.  We say if an argument smells like manure it probably is, and therefore it would fail the sniff test.

So let’s look at Vermont’s claims that it would shut down Vermont Yankee nuclear plant because of economic and reliability concerns.

First the facts of the economic case:

• in negotiations with the state, Vermont Yankee agreed to sell electricity to Vermont utilities at lower rates than it would charge customers in neighboring states.
• The plant employs more than 600 full time employees whose payroll adds $50 million per year to the local economy.
• Each year Entergy, the plant’s owner donates approx. $370,00 to local charities.
• If the plant is allowed to run for an additional 20 years it would add over $2 billion in additional income to Windham County and the state of Vermont.
• Also, rate payers would benefit because Entergy agreed to a revenue sharing plan with Vermont utilities who would pass the savings on to the customers.

All in all, this is a very sweet deal.  This is particularly true when you compare it to the alternative of importing more expensive electricity from other states, most of which is generated by burning natural gas.  Vermont would LOVE to replace Vermont Yankee with solar and wind power, but that’s a fantasy.  What minuscule amounts of solar or wind energy they might get would be priced many times higher than Vermont Yankee’s electricity.  More likely they would import energy from Seabrook Nuclear Plant in neighboring NH.  In fact, at least one VT utility already has plans to do that (how’s that for classic NIMBYism?)!

Finally, people opposed to VY like to claim they’ll get stuck with the cost of decommissioning the plant.  That just means they don’t understand what it means to be in a DEREGULATED electricity market.  Vermont Yankee is a “merchant generator” and does not have the legal right to pass on expenses to rate payers. It sells power to customers and it’s profits are the simple difference between their costs and their revenues.  Entergy, the plant’s owner is responsible for the cost of decommissioning the plant.  They have a growing fund set aside to do that, and they are a large fortune 500 company with the financial resources to make good on their responsibility.

In summary, the ECONOMICS argument to shut down the plant fails the “sniff test”.  Continuing to run Vermont Yankee, as long as it can be done safely,  makes great economic sense for Vermonters.

Now let’s look at the second part of the question: Is Vermont Yankee RELIABLE?  To do that we need to consider the percentage of full power at which the plant runs on average.  In power plant jargon we call this the “capacity factor,” and a perfect score is 100%.

• Solar panels in “prime sites” run at about 15% capacity factor.  Vermont, with it’s high latitude and long snowy winters would be lucky to get 10%.
• New wind turbines claim 35% capacity factors, something that has yet to be proven over the long term, but we’ll use that as a point of reference.
• Hydro power is highly variable.  In some years when there’s good rain and snow the water flows are good and capacity factors can be high.  In drought years hydro plants barely run at all.
• Gas turbines have the ability to run at high capacity factors but rarely do because of the cost of natural gas (nuclear, hydro and coal are less costly).
• Now (drumroll please…) for the last five years Vermont Yankee has run at about 93% capacity factor making it by far the most reliable source of electricity in the state of Vermont.

In addition, the New England ISO has repeatedly stated the electrical grid would become unreliable if Vermont Yankee is shutdown.  Thus, not only is the plant reliable on its own accord, when running it helps the entire system be more reliable.

Shumlin’s argument that Vermont Yankee is unreliable is pure fantasy.  This part of the state’s case also fails the sniff test.

So, if Vermont Yankee is providing economic benefit to the state with very little economic risk, and if the plant is the most reliable generator in the region and contributes to electrical grid reliability, the state of Vermont does not have a case.

That is, of course, unless they are really trying to regulate their own version of nuclear SAFETY.  If that’s the case then Vermont’s argument just plain stinks.

John Wheeler

ThisWeekinNuclear.com

References:

1. Vermont Yankee Economic Impact from Vermont PSB Hearing
2. Solar Capacity Factor
3. Wind Capacity Factor
4. Sniff Test

Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel has been used safely in nuclear power reactors for decades.  The presence of a limited number of MOX fuel assemblies at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 has not had a significant impact on the ability to cool the reactor or on any radioactive releases from the site due to damage from the earthquake and tsunami.

Here’s a link to their full report.  It’s a short read and provides an excellent explanation of the current situation and risks associated with MOX fuel.

Back in TWiN Episode #77 I covered the topic of MOX fuel, where it comes from, and where it is used.  Here are some important facts about MOX nuclear fuel:

• MOX present in nuclear plant fuel changes some aspects of the fuel’s performance in accident conditions, but these changes are relatively minor (see the ANS letter for details on this).
• MOX fuel comes from two main sources; recycling former weapons material into nuclear fuel, and recycling used nuclear power plant fuel for reuse.
• Creating MOX for power reactors is a safe way to dispose of weapons grade plutonium.
• MOX fuel can not be used to make nuclear weapons.  The NRC states “Using the plutonium in the reactor as MOX fuel makes using it for any other purposes difficult.”
• Plutonium in nuclear fuel is not unique to MOX fueled reactors.  All nuclear reactors contain plutonium after the reactor has been in operation for any period of time.  In fact, at the end of life of a typical low enriched uranium core up to about 20% of the heat being generated is from the fission of plutonium atoms.
• Plutonium in MOX fueled reactors can not cause the reactor to explode.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear